From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Fri Oct 6 00:00:30 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Sat Oct 7 00:57:06 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
In-Reply-To: <BAY123-F27C1A293DDBFF8B1059D4BB7120@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F284627AEB0A8F68223FEF5A8120@phx.gbl>
Dear Regina, interesting, interesting indeed: you are "loving" some words
delivered by an internetserviceprovider?? What does it 'take' for that
thinkg "Regina" to ""LOVE""" some thinkg?
Love & Virtuality, K
[...]! However, if you are a miserable older
>lady, please know you are very much LOVED!
>
>Regina
>
>
>>From: "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com>
>>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
>>Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 14:12:10 -0400
>>
>>
>>>Dropper drops the "knowledge"-bomb:
>>
>>And there is MUCH
>>
>>http://livingindryden.org/images/rt13366/lockewoods07062004B.jpg
>>
>>to be "gained" (in terms of looking at the function of
>>>thought - where the content is not cooperating) in looking deeply at
>>>objections to content.
>>
>>>pat
>>
>>
>>ps: Pat, you come across, under all your pea&cocking out&puts&post here as
>>a rather miserable older lady.... "despite" all those decades of a "life"
>>of dialogloglogloging?
>>
>>
>>Kirsten
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>The next generation of Search—say hello!
>>http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>info:
>>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>>dialogue facilitator:
>>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>>Administrator of the mailing list:
>>admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Search—Your way, your world, right now!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Fri Oct 6 00:01:20 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Sat Oct 7 00:57:56 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] DonF
In-Reply-To: <C14AE0EF.35BE%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F31641DC9E25433122B38E3A8120@phx.gbl>
Dear "K" ~ ......... "source"??
K
I am delighted to be dialoging
>with someone who is so close to the sources. k
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC. Get a free 90-day trial!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.windowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 6 03:14:15 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 7 04:28:27 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
References: <OF7219E54E.FCE54C9D-ON852571FE.00491CEC-852571FE.004A74B9@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <000501c6e8e7$1ff22490$3236153f@DL01>
Rodger __this is not meant as a criticism, but an inquiry;
do you believe that you experience the context of the early Christian living condition, internally & externally, so that its possible to regard dia logos -as they did- ?
Don L: The short answer is no, but those Jews comprising "early Christianity" could read and write. I can read a dictionary, encyclopedia, read scholarly works regarding extant manuscripts from that time and have at least a fair idea of how logos was viewed. It is no secret. Both Tillich and Heidegger as well as others have expertise regarding the Parmenides/Heraclitus fragments respecting the Greek logos. Again, it is no secret.
Rodger:
Or, is it by way of theory/ imagination about what the early Christian conditions WERE LIKE -- and then construct thoughts about the emotions and thought processes they experienced, and based upon that construct; regard dia logos -as they did- ?
Don L: Are we to imagine that being struck by a sword two millennia ago was substantially different from being struck by a sword today? I'm unclear about what you are asking. Have you never checked out the encyclopedia re the meaning of Greek logos? -- Don L
.
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Message-ID: <009901c6e7b7$7358d1f0$ca76153f@DL01>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
.
Why would we not regard dialogue or dia logos as did the "early Christians" as well as at least several translators? Why not see Bohm's notions of meaning as related to the early Greek dia logos? -- dbl
.
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061005/424fc99a/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 6 03:24:16 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 7 04:28:28 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
References: <OF13AAED61.669511AB-ON852571FE.00452603-852571FE.004578F5@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <000601c6e8e7$2262d670$3236153f@DL01>
Or do you actually mean: Why not see Bohm's notions of meaning as related to the early Greek dia logos? -- Rodger
What are "Bohm's notions of meaning as related to the early Greek dia logos?" First, what are his notions of the Greek logos? Where did he get them? Make them up out of fresh air? Did he intend disregarding 2700 years of interest in the Greek logos?
Is Bohm's statement about giving a special meaning to logos do dialogue to be construed as meaning he intended disregarding 2700 years of interest in the Greek logos? Would a sane man do that? A reasonable man? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 8:38 AM
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
Rodger __ Do you mean to say: why not include early Greek in our notions of meaning, re; Bohm dialogue? Or do you actually mean: Why not see Bohm's notions of meaning as related to the early Greek dia logos?
.
.
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Message-ID: <009901c6e7b7$7358d1f0$ca76153f@DL01>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
.
Why would we not regard dialogue or dia logos as did the "early Christians" as well as at least several translators? Why not see Bohm's notions of meaning as related to the early Greek dia logos? -- dbl
.
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061005/3f8b46ad/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 6 03:36:15 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 7 04:33:21 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
References: <C14AA272.3593%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <002601c6e8e7$d2ad25d0$3236153f@DL01>
Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaningMakes sense to me. -- Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: Kathryn Arizmendi
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
Pat, what you say absolutely makes sense to me. kathy
On 10/5/06 11:31 AM, "ae.dropper@juno.com" <ae.dropper@juno.com> wrote:
You are still coming from a position of non - understanding. And it is a kind of non - understanding that can only be "explained at." It cannot be 'explained away'. For one thing, the non - understanding is too huge. And the combination of non - understanding with a presumption of understanding is particularly tricky and can only be addressed, it seems, by suspension of the presumption of understanding.
Has anyone here not had the experience of "Where do I begin?" when contemplating the attempt to make something clear and plain (explain) to a particular person? And it hasn't worked at all using a direct approach? What tends to occur in a group dialogue setting is that the would be, particular attempts to "make clear" just go into the general mix. Maybe even to no avail regarding the original non - understanding, but it richens the "mix" and for those who are giving general attention, much can be gleaned from the "mix."
Understanding of content has never been an inherent necessity in dialogue. We can't each go into the backgrounds of where each of the others is "coming from" regarding the background of their studies. There are enough people on the list now that there is a good chance that someone will hear each of us. And when someone is heard in this way, it is to be celebrated (such as with Mark and Kathy recently). It is certainly not to be denigrated. There are tangential understandings that can be drawn from the exchanges between people that have a particular rapport - even if it is only the simple enjoyment of the pleasantries of rapport.
And there is MUCH to be "gained" (in terms of looking at the function of thought - where the content is not cooperating) in looking deeply at objections to content.
And this is especially so when "personal character" aspects conspicuously pepper content, those aspects that appeal to prejudice.
pat
On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 09:20:43 +0100 Don Factor <donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk> writes:
Good, you've finally explained it. For you Bohm and dialogue are primarily an intellectual exercise, or a search for what you call truth or that which is. While for me, that is all interesting but secondary. For me Bohm's work is anything but that. It is an attempt to understand the stuff that is going on our heads and to see if there is any way to make that behave more coherently or intelligently than it appears to be at the moment. As a scientist, he put this into a context that was natural to him, He thought of it in terms of physics. His insight was that the mind must act in a way that is similar to the way the quantum world acts, or appears to act. This led him to the idea of getting groups of people to dialogue to together as means of exploring the process of thought. He was not interested in developing a history of the mind or a theory of consciousness. That, I suppose, he left to Krishnamurti.
But in this light, my question to you would be, Do you think that the discovery that DeKooning's space is, on close examination, actually a cubist space, will help make you or anyone a better painter?
don
On 5 Oct 2006, at 02:04, Don Lay wrote:
i can only assume ... -- donF
You assume correctly! I do not find much of what you prate about very interesting (since it seems self-aggrandizing), though I do read most of it as time permits. Right now I'm busy trying to get the bathroom finished so I can hit the road next week, get to the mountains before the leaves fall. -- DonL
And by the way, your pre-Socratic folk heroes ... -- donF
"Your pre-Socratic folk heroes ...". It is unclear why you are disturbed enough to name-call. A couple of weeks ago it was some kind of guilt by association with Hitler because of quoting Heidegger, and before that guilt for quoting a Christian theologian. How sad, how pitiful! I wonder if it makes you feel good, if it elevates your self-esteem. -- donL
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor <mailto:donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
i can only assume that you didn't read the various clips that i sent some hours ago and that are attached to this post, on the meanings of meaning in the context of dialogue. They have nothing whatsoever to do with idle curiosity although I must admit that curiosity is a valid approach to understanding.
And by the way, your pre-Socratic folk heroes don't seem to have ever mentioned anything that can be translated as meaning. Actually they opposed each other philosophically. P was a fire man and H was into water. Logos has the meanings you assign to it but Bohm did not make up the word "dialogue" as a kind of neologism. It was a common word that described the kind of activity that he was interested in pursuing. if you or I had dreamed it up, we might well have chosen the same word. in fact he, along with the rest of us in our small group, wasn't satisfied with the word because we all felt it could cause confusion. So we settled for group dialogue or Dialogue with a capital D.
And 'meaning' is not limited in Bohm's cosmology to reason or ratio although it certainly includes these amongst its many meanings. What for Bohm was most interesting about meaning as a principle in considering 'the whole' is that it could refer to itself. One cannot speak of the matter of matter nor the energy of energy, but we can consider the meaning of meaning. That's what interested him. In dealing with the whole, meaning in that sense is fundamental.
don
On 4 Oct 2006, at 18:52, Don Lay wrote:
to me, its just an interesting curiosity. -- donF
Surely you don't actually mean that meaning only means idle curiousness. :) -- donL
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Factor <mailto:donfactor@donfactor.demon.co.uk>
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love+ meaning
DonL, you have never told us why this connection is so important to you. Please, can you say, what it means for You? Because to me, its just an interesting curiosity. But obviously, I am still missing something.
On 4 Oct 2006, at 14:17, Don Lay wrote:
Don L: What is "meaning"?
Here are some clips and quotes, all by Bohm which may help give you a sense of the meaning of meaning in the contexts that interest me here,
The aspect of soma cannot be divided from the aspect of significance. Whatever meanings there may be 'in our minds', these are, as we have seen, inseparable from the totality of our somatic structures and therefore from what we are.
Meaning is capable of an indefinite extension to ever greater levels of subtlety and comprehensiveness, in which there is a movement from the explicate toward the implicate. This can only take place however when new meanings are being perceived freshly from moment to moment.
Basic terms, like meaning, and energy are very difficult to define. We run out of analogies here. Differences become more subtle, similarities abound. The terms are more and more capable of covering everything. They are more general. Words are defined in terms of other words, and eventually, the original word will come back (energy-work, work-energy). So you have to explore the word, and unfold its meaning, begin to perceive it.
Energy is this power, this movement, which acts. It has to be given a direction, and meaning does that. A form. But meaning may also arouse energy. Energy may be in a dormant state, moving back and forth and being trapped, and a perception of a new meaning, may allow that energy to be liberated.
The energy carries the meaning of the matter to a subtler level and gives rise to a backward movement in which the meaning acts on the matter. Physics says that matter and energy are two aspects of one reality. In the implicate order energy and matter are imbued with a certain kind of meaning which gives form to their overall activity, and to the matter which arises in that activity. The middle term enfolds the other two.
The enfoldment by meaning seems to be more fundamental than the enfoldment of the other types [energy & matter]. Meaning enfolds meanings, and refers to itself directly, and this is the basis of the possibility of that intelligence which can comprehend the whole, including itself.
This may give you a better sense of the idea. Etymologically it seems that the noun 'meaning' as in meaningful is closely related to commune, community, communion. But I can find nothing from the Greek. They must have known about it, because it so fundamental, but like other such ideas it probably was never brought to the surface for closer inspection. If you know what I mean.
don
----------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061005/71375401/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Fri Oct 6 03:57:50 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Sat Oct 7 04:54:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F34B9929522489858A15BE7A8120@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C14B305E.35D6%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
I thought I explained that. When I finish reading all the emails, I'll go
back and resend that one to you.
Best, k
On 10/5/06 5:54 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "k": I have a lot to work with now,
>
>
> Dear k, what 're you 'working' on....... and, 'better': why?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Love & leizure, Ki
>
>
>
>
>
> thanks to everyone who responded.
>> It's informative to read (Bohm's) anyone's ideas in several different
>> sources, and compare what they say. k
>>
>>
>> On 10/5/06 3:22 PM, "Kathryn Arizmendi" <tangykatt@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Lynne. I may eventually put this altogether in some form of
>> essay.
>>> I'd love to compare it with, or better yet, have someone much more
>>> knowledgeable than I - compare it to the things going on in cognitive
>>> neurobiology.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/5/06 3:15 PM, "Lynne Tolk" <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kathy,
>>>>
>>>> Just to clarify, TAS is an acronym for "thought as system" which is
>> pretty
>>>> basic to Bohm's ideas (there is a book by that name). Basically, my
>> sense
>>>> is that Bohm's concept of thought includes everything humans have
>>>> accumulated, both conceptually and as artifacts. It is not only what
>> we
>>>> have as content for thinking, but shapes how we think. It is not
>> something
>>>> apart from us that we perceive and then respond to, though this is our
>> usual
>>>> understanding, but actually is that in and around us that triggers
>> reflexes
>>>> chemically in our bodies/brains. Some see this as pretty
>> deterministic.
>>>> Bohm, however, saw something else, involved in creativity, that can
>> break
>>>> through and cause insights, which can then alter the entire TAS system.
>> He
>>>> felt dialogue was the best method for achieving these insights by
>> providing
>>>> an opportunity for noticing one's own assumptions.
>>>>
>>>> (I'm new to all this, so this is only my understanding of what I've
>> read!)
>>>>
>>>> Lynne
>>>>
>>>> On 10/5/06 12:19 PM, "Kathryn Arizmendi" <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you, Kris. I KNEW I was asking the right person.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I'm not "dying" for this, it's what I'm "living" for, in the
>> sense
>>>>> that it keeps me alive, energized, purposeful, and balanced while I
>> complete
>>>>> (Lento, I hope) the Pollen Path walk of life. And I'm applying it to
>> the
>>>>> structure and teaching of music, as well as anything else that
>> presents
>>>>> itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've met plenty of mental disorders of varying degrees quantitatively
>> and
>>>>> qualitatively. Enough to have opted for compassion (the practice of
>> maitre)
>>>>> rather than persecution and anger, after a long period of searching
>> myself.
>>>>> But -
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm afraid I must plead more help from you. I have no idea what TAS
>> is. I
>>>>> know this is involved. If you don't have time for an explanation, can
>> you
>>>>> refer me to readings - bibliography, websites - please. I would be
>> most
>>>>> grateful. k
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/5/06 2:03 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thought going (trying to) after thought
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is a malfunction (disorder) of the system (TAS)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is, literally, a sick proposal (thinkg)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And (pushed to the 'extreme') TAS will not
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Allow" this
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A 'shut-down' (some liken to call it: mental disorder) is eminent
>> ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go for it Subscriber, if that is what you are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dying for"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kirsten," beentheredonethat"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>>>>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
>>>>>>> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:35:51 -0400
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yesterday I requested clarification of the statements below,
>> especially >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!)".
>>>>>>> Perhaps,
>>>>>>> in my haste to leave, I did not explain well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I previously posted, asking if there have been correlations between
>> the
>>>>>>> recent findings of cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on
>> perception
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> intelligence. No one responded, so I assumed this was not an area
>> too
>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>> investigated by our group members.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you made the statement I just quoted, I inferred and hoped that
>> you
>>>>>>> might have some information on the relationship of recent
>> developments in
>>>>>>> cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception and
>> intelligence
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> you would/could share. Further, that and physics are the only areas
>> that
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> can think of where Bohm's thinking might have been amplified by
>> scientific
>>>>>>> experiments performed after his death. I cannot imagine that a man
>> of his
>>>>>>> erudition had not explored all that which preceded and was current
>> with
>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>> life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How the brain (housed in and connected to our bodies) works -
>> certainly
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> bearing on dialog, definitions, meaning, the meaning of meaning, and
>> all
>>>>>>> things related. It certainly is a component of "nature" as the
>> intrinsic
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> essential character of somebody or something. It is of great
>> importance
>>>>>>> because of its implications for the educational system, hence global
>>>>>>> society, and special interest for me because I am a teacher.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am hoping you (as well as our other members) have some information
>> you
>>>>>>> are willing to share, best, k
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/4/06 4:27 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Neither David Bohm nor Donf have understood the nature of the
>> humanimal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (A hand full plus of decades on this planet have not done the
>> "trick") :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The 'last' thinkg the humanimal wants is to get (to) this
>>>>>>>> "communication-thinkgiii
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bohm/Dlialog 's drooling about ~ promisingsongsing to
>> 'open'
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> flood&gate to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!) ~
>>>>>>> e
>>>>>>>> vent u all y
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All wet & dreams ....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But enter taming to watch, non-the-less
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Keep it up, Subscribed-ones!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Love & Pleasure, Kbot
>>>>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> YES, AND
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time
>> and
>>>>>>>>> Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of
>> Dialogue
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> not to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in
>>>>>>>>> communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them
>>>>>>> directly.
>>>>>>>>> It is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In Dialogue
>> we are
>>>>>>>>> ready to raise topics serious enough to cause trouble. But while
>> we
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> talking we are interested in being aware of what's going on
>> inside us
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> between us. D Bohm
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Be seen and heard with Windows Live Messenger and Microsoft
>> LifeCams
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.
>> >>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> m
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> icrosoft.com/hardware/digitalcommunication/default.mspx?locale=en-us&source=h
>> >>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> m
>>>>>>>> tagline
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>> The next generation of Search?say hello!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMT
>> A>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> G
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> info:
>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>
>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> info:
>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>
>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
>>>> 208 376-1336
>>>> www.lifedirectionscoach.com
>>>> (visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Love is never earned . . .
>>>> It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add fun gadgets and colorful themes to express yourself on Windows Live
> Spaces
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.g
> et.live.com/spaces/features
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Fri Oct 6 04:58:04 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Sat Oct 7 05:54:43 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Especially for Kris
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F34B9929522489858A15BE7A8120@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C14B3E7C.35DC%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Some repetition - some new material. I don't talk in matchsticks. Be
warned!
WHY I'm working on understanding the processes involved in cognitive
neurology, and their application to the teaching-learning process. It is
only the first step. More will follow. If one begins this kind of thinking
- inquiry - dialog - communication in the schools at a very young age, maybe
we can have a better society. In some way, even if only through the people
I've dialogued with in this process, it will be my legacy when I move on to
other realms. But I not only try to live by this, I write. And who knows,
the understanding might be useful when I become part of the Implicit Order
again! I keep an open mind. I neither know, nor don't know.
I had a marvellous mentor - educator - theorist - teacher - who developed
her work along Bohm principles. Her influence stayed with me for 35 years,
until I met her again in Bohm. I know there have been advances since her
day. I would like to know what those advances are.
I also hope that somewhere in there, I can find a way to keep people from
hurting each other with verbal putdowns, and other kinds of abuse. Maybe
together we can make a society where the conditions that spawn and
perpetrate such cruelty just don't exist. A society where the one who is
"different" will be valued instead of shut out. Where differences are
explored for their value.
Actually, I'm not "dying" for this, it's what I'm "living" for, in the sense
that it keeps me alive, energized, purposeful, and balanced while I complete
(Lento, I hope) the Pollen Path walk of life. And I'm applying it to the
structure and teaching of music, as well as anything else that presents
itself.
I remain grateful for any help you would like to give, and please know I
value your point of view. I may not agree, but I will try it out more than
once. I'm likely to try to dialogue with you about the points we disagree
on! And I don't come from the place that says one of us must WIN!
Maybe someday, you'd like to tell me what creative venue you prefer. I know
you have one! Someone of your makeup must have a way to give expression to
all that intelligence, sensitivity, and experience.
So, Ki (Kris), I complete this response with purpose, ideals, leizure to
explore them, and love. k
On 10/5/06 5:54 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "k": I have a lot to work with now,
>
>
> Dear k, what 're you 'working' on....... and, 'better': why?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Love & leizure, Ki
>
>
>
>
>
> thanks to everyone who responded.
>> It's informative to read (Bohm's) anyone's ideas in several different
>> sources, and compare what they say. k
>>
>>
>> On 10/5/06 3:22 PM, "Kathryn Arizmendi" <tangykatt@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Lynne. I may eventually put this altogether in some form of
>> essay.
>>> I'd love to compare it with, or better yet, have someone much more
>>> knowledgeable than I - compare it to the things going on in cognitive
>>> neurobiology.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/5/06 3:15 PM, "Lynne Tolk" <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kathy,
>>>>
>>>> Just to clarify, TAS is an acronym for "thought as system" which is
>> pretty
>>>> basic to Bohm's ideas (there is a book by that name). Basically, my
>> sense
>>>> is that Bohm's concept of thought includes everything humans have
>>>> accumulated, both conceptually and as artifacts. It is not only what
>> we
>>>> have as content for thinking, but shapes how we think. It is not
>> something
>>>> apart from us that we perceive and then respond to, though this is our
>> usual
>>>> understanding, but actually is that in and around us that triggers
>> reflexes
>>>> chemically in our bodies/brains. Some see this as pretty
>> deterministic.
>>>> Bohm, however, saw something else, involved in creativity, that can
>> break
>>>> through and cause insights, which can then alter the entire TAS system.
>> He
>>>> felt dialogue was the best method for achieving these insights by
>> providing
>>>> an opportunity for noticing one's own assumptions.
>>>>
>>>> (I'm new to all this, so this is only my understanding of what I've
>> read!)
>>>>
>>>> Lynne
>>>>
>>>> On 10/5/06 12:19 PM, "Kathryn Arizmendi" <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you, Kris. I KNEW I was asking the right person.
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, I'm not "dying" for this, it's what I'm "living" for, in the
>> sense
>>>>> that it keeps me alive, energized, purposeful, and balanced while I
>> complete
>>>>> (Lento, I hope) the Pollen Path walk of life. And I'm applying it to
>> the
>>>>> structure and teaching of music, as well as anything else that
>> presents
>>>>> itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've met plenty of mental disorders of varying degrees quantitatively
>> and
>>>>> qualitatively. Enough to have opted for compassion (the practice of
>> maitre)
>>>>> rather than persecution and anger, after a long period of searching
>> myself.
>>>>> But -
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm afraid I must plead more help from you. I have no idea what TAS
>> is. I
>>>>> know this is involved. If you don't have time for an explanation, can
>> you
>>>>> refer me to readings - bibliography, websites - please. I would be
>> most
>>>>> grateful. k
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 10/5/06 2:03 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thought going (trying to) after thought
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is a malfunction (disorder) of the system (TAS)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is, literally, a sick proposal (thinkg)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And (pushed to the 'extreme') TAS will not
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'Allow" this
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A 'shut-down' (some liken to call it: mental disorder) is eminent
>> ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go for it Subscriber, if that is what you are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dying for"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kirsten," beentheredonethat"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>>>>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>>>>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
>>>>>>> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:35:51 -0400
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yesterday I requested clarification of the statements below,
>> especially >
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!)".
>>>>>>> Perhaps,
>>>>>>> in my haste to leave, I did not explain well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I previously posted, asking if there have been correlations between
>> the
>>>>>>> recent findings of cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on
>> perception
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> intelligence. No one responded, so I assumed this was not an area
>> too
>>>>>>> often
>>>>>>> investigated by our group members.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you made the statement I just quoted, I inferred and hoped that
>> you
>>>>>>> might have some information on the relationship of recent
>> developments in
>>>>>>> cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception and
>> intelligence
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> you would/could share. Further, that and physics are the only areas
>> that
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> can think of where Bohm's thinking might have been amplified by
>> scientific
>>>>>>> experiments performed after his death. I cannot imagine that a man
>> of his
>>>>>>> erudition had not explored all that which preceded and was current
>> with
>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>> life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How the brain (housed in and connected to our bodies) works -
>> certainly
>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>> bearing on dialog, definitions, meaning, the meaning of meaning, and
>> all
>>>>>>> things related. It certainly is a component of "nature" as the
>> intrinsic
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> essential character of somebody or something. It is of great
>> importance
>>>>>>> because of its implications for the educational system, hence global
>>>>>>> society, and special interest for me because I am a teacher.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am hoping you (as well as our other members) have some information
>> you
>>>>>>> are willing to share, best, k
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/4/06 4:27 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Neither David Bohm nor Donf have understood the nature of the
>> humanimal
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (A hand full plus of decades on this planet have not done the
>> "trick") :
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The 'last' thinkg the humanimal wants is to get (to) this
>>>>>>>> "communication-thinkgiii
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bohm/Dlialog 's drooling about ~ promisingsongsing to
>> 'open'
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> flood&gate to
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!) ~
>>>>>>> e
>>>>>>>> vent u all y
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> All wet & dreams ....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But enter taming to watch, non-the-less
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Keep it up, Subscribed-ones!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Love & Pleasure, Kbot
>>>>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> YES, AND
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time
>> and
>>>>>>>>> Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of
>> Dialogue
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> not to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in
>>>>>>>>> communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them
>>>>>>> directly.
>>>>>>>>> It is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In Dialogue
>> we are
>>>>>>>>> ready to raise topics serious enough to cause trouble. But while
>> we
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> talking we are interested in being aware of what's going on
>> inside us
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> between us. D Bohm
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Be seen and heard with Windows Live Messenger and Microsoft
>> LifeCams
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.
>> >>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> m
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> icrosoft.com/hardware/digitalcommunication/default.mspx?locale=en-us&source=h
>> >>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> m
>>>>>>>> tagline
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> info:
>>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>>> The next generation of Search?say hello!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMT
>> A>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> G
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> info:
>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>
>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> info:
>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>
>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Lynne Tolk, Professional Coach
>>>> 208 376-1336
>>>> www.lifedirectionscoach.com
>>>> (visit my blog, www.anintegratedlife.com)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Love is never earned . . .
>>>> It is a grace we give one another" - Rachel Naomi Remen
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Add fun gadgets and colorful themes to express yourself on Windows Live
> Spaces
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwsp0070000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.g
> et.live.com/spaces/features
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Fri Oct 6 05:04:08 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Sat Oct 7 06:00:44 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] DonF
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F31641DC9E25433122B38E3A8120@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C14B3FE8.35DF%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Maybe there's a better choice word, but Bohm dialog is based on Bohm's
thinking - alone and in dialog with others. Don was one of that group,
according to Wikipedia. k
On 10/5/06 6:01 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear "K" ~ ......... "source"??
>
>
>
> K
>
> I am delighted to be dialoging
>> with someone who is so close to the sources. k
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> All-in-one security and maintenance for your PC.? Get a free 90-day trial!
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwlo0050000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.w
> indowsonecare.com/?sc_cid=msn_hotmail
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Fri Oct 6 05:54:49 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Sat Oct 7 06:51:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F13F9DE508A89B23DEB3DB6A8120@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C14B4BC9.35E1%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Kris - is that you? You're back? Yesgood! I was beginning to think the
Gabriel and Rooster duet didn't make it through cyberspace, or maybe you'd
gone to get fitted with hearing aids - or any number of creative scenarios!
Here goes -
In "Physics and Perception" Bohm says "...Tones have manifold
relationships...To grasp these relationships is essential to the
understanding of music." W.A. Mathieu, who has combined Eastern and Western
approaches to music theory says, "You must know what you are hearing to
master its wisdom." Put the two together - voila! I am working on relating
my understanding of music theory to the practice of improvisation through
the application of Bohm principles.
I see whatever the vibrations are that our ears pick up and our brain
interprets as sound to be as close to the Implicate Order as I can get in
the world of music. I guess this is the physics of sound.
>From there, we seem to go to the overtone series, one kind of enfolded
order, that is activated when we "create a disturbance in the energy" -
whatever that means - by plucking a string, singing a tone, depressing a
piano key, etc, etc.
What is that "energy" made of? What set it to vibrating? I'm stuck
thinking that something has to have caused the vibrations that continuously
flow from Implicate to Explicate order, and back again. I also think the
rate of vibration changes for various enfolded patterns - manifestations.
But if it does, why?
After that, it gets into the nitty gritty of pure musical theory such as
rhythm as time-space, then the relationship of movement - proprioreception -
to perception and other cognitive -neurological processes. Then scale
structure, triadic harmony, design, and the tones that are of reciprocal and
overtonal energies respectively. I will happily and gratefully try to
explain, if you have the patience to listen and respond.
Love and Confusion, k
On 10/5/06 5:51 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dear "k" ~ I am back. Nogood? "Kris"
>
>
>> From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
>> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:03:52 -0400
>>
>> Mark ? When you get back, please let me know. I have some musical points
>> I?d like to discuss with you. best, k
>>
>>
>> On 10/5/06 4:23 PM, "MarkHarmer@aol.com" <MarkHarmer@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok - not only do I not have time, I don't think I even understand it!
>>>
>>> Seriously, were you a journalist, by any chance? I think I'm picking up
>> the
>>> negative vibes.
>>>> "Time"?
>>>>
>>>> No-time-for-an-"insight"?
>>>>
>>>> ..... I am not sure this just didoes not stinkgkgk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure I have time to answer this!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark, which "insights" are you talking about? Kirsten
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Try the new Live Search today!
>
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTA>
G
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Fri Oct 6 05:56:30 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Sat Oct 7 06:53:09 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <BAY107-F31CF72F71825A06522998EA8120@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <C14B4C2E.35E2%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Thanks, again. k
On 10/5/06 5:47 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Zoe ~ I would add "Beyond Psychology" by Rank.
>
>
>
>
> Love & Busting, Kbot
>
>
>> From: Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
>> Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 12:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
>>
>> Kathryn , Tas is Though-As-a-System (a book also by Bohm), the 'whole'
>> thinkg, you see... the super&structure that runs the show.
>>
>> As far as what it allows w/o breakdown:
>>
>> It pretty&ugly&much&little boils down to:
>>
>> DENIAL & REPRESSION & DECEPTION & LIES & ACTING & PRETENDING etc etc
>> etc....
>>
>> good reading on that to start with: Ernest Becker's "denial of death"
>> [I will send you a link to a private website that has a fair amount of the
>> book online,,, but you cant post the link, copy-right issues!]. also:
>> sigmund freud's "civilization and its discontents" [very tasty little
>> pamphlet]... I am in a rush now... Ciao, Kris
>>
>> Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Whatever TAS is - what DOES it allow without causing a breakdown?
>> Thanks, k
>>
>>
>> On 10/5/06 2:03 PM, "kirsten schneide" wrote:
>>
>>> Thought going (trying to) after thought
>>>
>>> Is a malfunction (disorder) of the system (TAS)
>>>
>>> It is, literally, a sick proposal (thinkg)
>>>
>>> And (pushed to the 'extreme') TAS will not
>>>
>>> 'Allow" this
>>>
>>> A 'shut-down' (some liken to call it: mental disorder) is eminent ....
>>>
>>> Go for it Subscriber, if that is what you are:
>>>
>>> "Dying for"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kirsten," beentheredonethat"
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: Kathryn Arizmendi
>>>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>>>> To:
>>>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
>>>> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:35:51 -0400
>>>>
>>>> Yesterday I requested clarification of the statements below, especially
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!)".
>> Perhaps,
>>>> in my haste to leave, I did not explain well.
>>>>
>>>> I previously posted, asking if there have been correlations between the
>>>> recent findings of cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on
>> perception
>>>> and
>>>> intelligence. No one responded, so I assumed this was not an area too
>>>> often
>>>> investigated by our group members.
>>>>
>>>> When you made the statement I just quoted, I inferred and hoped that
>> you
>>>> might have some information on the relationship of recent developments
>> in
>>>> cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception and intelligence
>> that
>>>> you would/could share. Further, that and physics are the only areas
>> that I
>>>> can think of where Bohm's thinking might have been amplified by
>> scientific
>>>> experiments performed after his death. I cannot imagine that a man of
>> his
>>>> erudition had not explored all that which preceded and was current with
>> his
>>>> life.
>>>>
>>>> How the brain (housed in and connected to our bodies) works - certainly
>> has
>>>> bearing on dialog, definitions, meaning, the meaning of meaning, and
>> all
>>>> things related. It certainly is a component of "nature" as the
>> intrinsic or
>>>> essential character of somebody or something. It is of great importance
>>>> because of its implications for the educational system, hence global
>>>> society, and special interest for me because I am a teacher.
>>>>
>>>> I am hoping you (as well as our other members) have some information
>> you
>>>> are willing to share, best, k
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/4/06 4:27 PM, "kirsten schneide" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither David Bohm nor Donf have understood the nature of the
>> humanimal
>>>>>
>>>>> (A hand full plus of decades on this planet have not done the "trick")
>> :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The 'last' thinkg the humanimal wants is to get (to) this
>>>>> "communication-thinkgiii
>>>>>
>>>>> Bohm/Dlialog 's drooling about ~ promisingsongsing to 'open'
>>>> the
>>>>> flood&gate to
>>>>>
>>>>> How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!) ~
>>>> e
>>>>> vent u all y
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> All wet & dreams ....
>>>>>
>>>>> But enter taming to watch, non-the-less
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep it up, Subscribed-ones!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Love & Pleasure, Kbot
>>>>> --------------------------
>>>>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> YES, AND
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time and
>>>>>> Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of Dialogue
>>>> is
>>>>>> not to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in
>>>>>> communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them
>>>> directly.
>>>>>> It is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In Dialogue we
>> are
>>>>>> ready to raise topics serious enough to cause trouble. But while we
>>>> are
>>>>>> talking we are interested in being aware of what's going on inside us
>>>> and
>>>>>> between us. D Bohm
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> info:
>>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>>
>>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>>>> Be seen and heard with Windows Live Messenger and Microsoft LifeCams
>>>>>
>>>>
>> http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.
>> >>
>> m
>>>>>
>>>>
>> icrosoft.com/hardware/digitalcommunication/default.mspx?locale=en-us&source=h
>> >>
>> m
>>>>> tagline
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> info:
>>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>>
>>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> info:
>>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>>
>>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> The next generation of Search?say hello!
>>>
>> http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMT
>> A>
>> G
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------
>> Do you Yahoo!?
>> Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more
then map the best
> route! http://local.live.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Fri Oct 6 06:06:05 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Sat Oct 7 07:03:07 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] Especially for Mark
In-Reply-To: <C149305C.75B3%lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com>
Message-ID: <C14B4E6D.35E4%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Lynne ? One of the great things about retirement is that you can really live
in the moment ? follow the impulse ? at least as long as your health and
money allow. The only time frames you have to live in are those set by body
necessities, and the desire to meet with other people who have rigid time
frames controlling their lives. That + no more enslavement to the power
hierarchy. Enjoy! k
On 10/4/06 11:33 AM, "Lynne Tolk" <lynne@lifedirectionscoach.com> wrote:
> Mark and Kathy,
>
> I appreciate your challenge to my phrase ?taking myself seriously? - I?ve been
> thinking and journaling about those words. My first impulse was regret over
> the times I have not, but then I realized that would not be taking my history
> (or tas) seriously. I can accept past choices and still make new ones now.
> Part of taking myself seriously means becoming aware of whatever makes up
> ?myself? in a given moment. I don?t have to set a standard or judge that,
> either. It may mean following an impulse when possible (such as joining this
> group, responding to what I read (at least what I perceive of what I read).
> It may mean interacting, with no thought of time, with my 2 month old
> grandson.
>
> I notice that the more I follow these impulses (which have no goal or plan,
> and may or may not bring me pleasure at the time), the happier I am in
> general.
>
> Lynne
>
> On 10/2/06 2:06 AM, "MarkHarmer@aol.com" <MarkHarmer@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree - they're lovely words, Lynne. You mentioned "taking yourself
>> seriously", which really resonates for me, too. Are these words a bit about
>> that? For me, your words so perfectly describe the "something invisible" that
>> holds me back, sometimes, from joining in. In fact, I realise that all my
>> music workshops, which are about "joining in" in one form or another, are
>> probably about me exploring (with my groups) how I join in.
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/f1e39177/attachment.html
From franis_franis at juno.com Fri Oct 6 07:04:34 2006
From: franis_franis at juno.com (Franis Engel)
Date: Sat Oct 7 08:04:51 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] a fragment
Message-ID: <20061005.220435.532.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
Hi Kathryn,
I happen to know Naomi Remen; she works at Commonweal, a local .org
around Bolinas.
Owen runs a forum that nobody is yet using for dialoging, but I believe
that it allows you to post pics; I'm not sure.
http://owenthomas.noosworld.com/forum1/index.php
I just checked it out, you can post pics! Look in the "forum features."
Franis
On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:30:15 -0400 Kathryn Arizmendi
<tangykatt@earthlink.net> writes:
>
> "Much of life can never be explained but only witnessed."
> - Rachel Naomi Remen, MD
>
> The attachment comes from me it¹s a photo. k
From MarkHarmer at aol.com Fri Oct 6 10:43:47 2006
From: MarkHarmer at aol.com (MarkHarmer@aol.com)
Date: Sat Oct 7 11:40:28 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
Message-ID: <cbe.c1c85.32577143@aol.com>
Hi Kathy,
I'm around - just a bit distracted at the moment. But... I had to comment on
this because it so resonates with some work I did a while ago.
One of my passions has been physics and particularly the physics of sound -
which is why I ended up recording / editing / broadcasting for so long. When
I've created music for people I've often used sampling (of natural sounds)
and their manipulation in order to create music / sound for community plays. We
did one recently where most of the village took part in one form or another.
The play ran outdoors for a week, and all the sounds were made up of things
gathered locally in the village. The site's at _http://www.mysteryplays.org/_
(http://www.mysteryplays.org/) if you want to see what it was all about.
But as part of the process of sampling you learn quite a lot about sound.
And one thing that really interested me is that there are two bits to a sound, a
chaotic, completely atonal part called the "transient" and the steady-state
bit which carries the "pitch" and "timbre" (sound quality) of that pitch, the
bit where you see the harmonics do their dance as the note carries on.
The transient is totally unmusical - and yet it's the transient, which can
last about 0.1 seconds, which gives meaning to the note which follows. If we
remove the transient we struggle to know what the note is. I've tried it - it
really is amazing. The pitch stays the same, of course, because that
information is part of the steady-state part of the waveform. But remove the transient
and pianos become like violins, drums sound really weird, and a "pinged"
wine-glass will sound like a harmonica - and you can also swap transients around
and your brain will be fooled into thinking the instrument has changed. So,
that initial 0.1 second carries a lot of the meaning. Not about the pitch,
but about what instrument is playing.
If you do this with words, you can swap around the transients and create
totally different words. This is why people with hearing loss have such trouble
- because everything suddenly becomes harder to understand, as if people are
speaking in a foreign language. Missing out the transient clues (which are
high-frequency) means that words have to be understood by their context - which
makes jokes more difficult for people with hearing difficulties to
understand, as jokes often depend on clashes between what's expected and what happens.
I put some illustrations of this on the web at
_http://www.danceofdelight.com/AMOC/Assignment1/index.html_
(http://www.danceofdelight.com/AMOC/Assignment1/index.html)
However, the sounds don't work when you click the graphic - I don't know
why. If you want to hear examples of transients and words, go lower down the
page - the "regular" blue underlined links do work.
The reason I put up the page, is that in organisational projects, often the
chaos at the beginning is how we get a sense of what the project is about as
it settles down. Miss out the chaos (either through not being there, or
because the organisation wants to "tidy up" the initial chaotic process to make it
seem like the project emerged perfect, and fully-formed) and often you will
struggle to make meaning out of what follows.
So I was trying to apply a principle of physics / acoustics to something
much larger. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Mark
I see whatever the vibrations are that our ears pick up and our brain
interprets as sound to be as close to the Implicate Order as I can get in
the world of music. I guess this is the physics of sound.
>From there, we seem to go to the overtone series, one kind of enfolded
order, that is activated when we "create a disturbance in the energy" -
whatever that means - by plucking a string, singing a tone, depressing a
piano key, etc, etc.
What is that "energy" made of? What set it to vibrating? I'm stuck
thinking that something has to have caused the vibrations that continuously
flow from Implicate to Explicate order, and back again. I also think the
rate of vibration changes for various enfolded patterns - manifestations.
But if it does, why?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/bc0a0f84/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Fri Oct 6 10:46:52 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Sat Oct 7 11:43:38 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
In-Reply-To: <20061006100004.C1634238B7@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF2965EF36.146D05FF-ON852571FF.002E8B39-852571FF.00303CD2@dialogos.com>
Rodger __I get the impression Don L , that you are saying you KNOW that the
source of Bohm s line of thinking can be traced to the material of
Permenides and Heraclitus.
Do you think the word -source- gives meaning to past events/people, as a
result of how -source- relates to our internal conscious presence? _R
.
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
Why not go back a lot further, as does Bohm, to Parmenides, Heraclitus?
-- Don L
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/64b08514/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 6 12:42:51 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 7 13:40:08 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
References: <C14B4BC9.35E1%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <001501c6e934$33260a20$db7e153f@DL01>
Kathryn:
I see whatever the vibrations are that our ears pick up and our brain
interprets as sound to be as close to the Implicate Order as I can get in
the world of music. I guess this is the physics of sound. -- k
DonL:
Although I am not "ear oriented", there's something very interesting here ..
the notion of interpretation and the implicate order. Are we saying the
Implicate must be interpreted ... and the interpretation is the explicate
order? Are we seeing a corollary between the physics of hearing and optics?
Kathryn:
>From there, we seem to go to the overtone series, one kind of enfolded
order, that is activated when we "create a disturbance in the energy" -
whatever that means - by plucking a string, singing a tone, depressing a
piano key, etc, etc.
DonL:
Is the 'enfolded' order "activated" by the disturbance? What do we say
activates the interpretation, explication? What 'causes' the 'energy
disturbance'? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathryn Arizmendi" <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 11:54 PM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
Kris - is that you? You're back? Yesgood! I was beginning to think the
Gabriel and Rooster duet didn't make it through cyberspace, or maybe you'd
gone to get fitted with hearing aids - or any number of creative scenarios!
Here goes -
In "Physics and Perception" Bohm says "...Tones have manifold
relationships...To grasp these relationships is essential to the
understanding of music." W.A. Mathieu, who has combined Eastern and Western
approaches to music theory says, "You must know what you are hearing to
master its wisdom." Put the two together - voila! I am working on relating
my understanding of music theory to the practice of improvisation through
the application of Bohm principles.
I see whatever the vibrations are that our ears pick up and our brain
interprets as sound to be as close to the Implicate Order as I can get in
the world of music. I guess this is the physics of sound.
>From there, we seem to go to the overtone series, one kind of enfolded
order, that is activated when we "create a disturbance in the energy" -
whatever that means - by plucking a string, singing a tone, depressing a
piano key, etc, etc.
What is that "energy" made of? What set it to vibrating? I'm stuck
thinking that something has to have caused the vibrations that continuously
flow from Implicate to Explicate order, and back again. I also think the
rate of vibration changes for various enfolded patterns - manifestations.
But if it does, why?
After that, it gets into the nitty gritty of pure musical theory such as
rhythm as time-space, then the relationship of movement - proprioreception -
to perception and other cognitive -neurological processes. Then scale
structure, triadic harmony, design, and the tones that are of reciprocal and
overtonal energies respectively. I will happily and gratefully try to
explain, if you have the patience to listen and respond.
Love and Confusion, k
On 10/5/06 5:51 PM, "kirsten schneide" <kirstenschneide@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dear "k" ~ I am back. Nogood? "Kris"
>
>
>> From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
>> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:03:52 -0400
>>
>> Mark ? When you get back, please let me know. I have some musical points
>> I?d like to discuss with you. best, k
>>
>>
>> On 10/5/06 4:23 PM, "MarkHarmer@aol.com" <MarkHarmer@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ok - not only do I not have time, I don't think I even understand it!
>>>
>>> Seriously, were you a journalist, by any chance? I think I'm picking up
>> the
>>> negative vibes.
>>>> "Time"?
>>>>
>>>> No-time-for-an-"insight"?
>>>>
>>>> ..... I am not sure this just didoes not stinkgkgk
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure I have time to answer this!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark, which "insights" are you talking about? Kirsten
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> info:
>>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>>
>>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> dialogue facilitator:
>>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> info:
>> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>>
>> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>>
>> dialogue facilitator:
>> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>>
>> Administrator of the mailing list:
>> admin@david-bohm.net
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Try the new Live Search today!
>
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTA>
G
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Fri Oct 6 12:52:13 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Sat Oct 7 13:49:01 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <20061007100003.D11B123947@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFE7DA4ABE.C1FFC2D4-ON852571FF.003B38A6-852571FF.003BB678@dialogos.com>
Rodger __Alternatively, TAS allows -- DENIAL & REPRESSION & DECEPTION &
LIES & ACTING & PRETENDING etc etc etc... as symptoms of breakdown. _R
.
From: Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
As far as what it allows w/o breakdown:
It pretty&ugly&much&little boils down to:
DENIAL & REPRESSION & DECEPTION & LIES & ACTING & PRETENDING etc etc
etc...
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/a9b98a61/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 6 12:56:32 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 7 13:53:23 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
References: <cbe.c1c85.32577143@aol.com>
Message-ID: <002601c6e936$187f75b0$db7e153f@DL01>
So, that initial 0.1 second carries a lot of the meaning. Not about the pitch, but about what instrument is playing. -- Mark
Mark, the thought occurs of the "transient" as relating not just to the instrument but to the Whole dia the instrument.
Does this fit? -- Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: MarkHarmer@aol.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 4:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
Hi Kathy,
I'm around - just a bit distracted at the moment. But... I had to comment on this because it so resonates with some work I did a while ago.
One of my passions has been physics and particularly the physics of sound - which is why I ended up recording / editing / broadcasting for so long. When I've created music for people I've often used sampling (of natural sounds) and their manipulation in order to create music / sound for community plays. We did one recently where most of the village took part in one form or another. The play ran outdoors for a week, and all the sounds were made up of things gathered locally in the village. The site's at http://www.mysteryplays.org/ if you want to see what it was all about.
But as part of the process of sampling you learn quite a lot about sound. And one thing that really interested me is that there are two bits to a sound, a chaotic, completely atonal part called the "transient" and the steady-state bit which carries the "pitch" and "timbre" (sound quality) of that pitch, the bit where you see the harmonics do their dance as the note carries on.
The transient is totally unmusical - and yet it's the transient, which can last about 0.1 seconds, which gives meaning to the note which follows. If we remove the transient we struggle to know what the note is. I've tried it - it really is amazing. The pitch stays the same, of course, because that information is part of the steady-state part of the waveform. But remove the transient and pianos become like violins, drums sound really weird, and a "pinged" wine-glass will sound like a harmonica - and you can also swap transients around and your brain will be fooled into thinking the instrument has changed. So, that initial 0.1 second carries a lot of the meaning. Not about the pitch, but about what instrument is playing.
If you do this with words, you can swap around the transients and create totally different words. This is why people with hearing loss have such trouble - because everything suddenly becomes harder to understand, as if people are speaking in a foreign language. Missing out the transient clues (which are high-frequency) means that words have to be understood by their context - which makes jokes more difficult for people with hearing difficulties to understand, as jokes often depend on clashes between what's expected and what happens.
I put some illustrations of this on the web at http://www.danceofdelight.com/AMOC/Assignment1/index.html
However, the sounds don't work when you click the graphic - I don't know why. If you want to hear examples of transients and words, go lower down the page - the "regular" blue underlined links do work.
The reason I put up the page, is that in organisational projects, often the chaos at the beginning is how we get a sense of what the project is about as it settles down. Miss out the chaos (either through not being there, or because the organisation wants to "tidy up" the initial chaotic process to make it seem like the project emerged perfect, and fully-formed) and often you will struggle to make meaning out of what follows.
So I was trying to apply a principle of physics / acoustics to something much larger. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Mark
I see whatever the vibrations are that our ears pick up and our brain
interprets as sound to be as close to the Implicate Order as I can get in
the world of music. I guess this is the physics of sound.
>From there, we seem to go to the overtone series, one kind of enfolded
order, that is activated when we "create a disturbance in the energy" -
whatever that means - by plucking a string, singing a tone, depressing a
piano key, etc, etc.
What is that "energy" made of? What set it to vibrating? I'm stuck
thinking that something has to have caused the vibrations that continuously
flow from Implicate to Explicate order, and back again. I also think the
rate of vibration changes for various enfolded patterns - manifestations.
But if it does, why?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/3d8c247f/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 6 13:34:13 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 7 14:31:29 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
References: <OF2965EF36.146D05FF-ON852571FF.002E8B39-852571FF.00303CD2@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <003501c6e93b$6cd92430$db7e153f@DL01>
I get the impression Don L , that you are saying you KNOW ... -- Rodger
Please let me disabuse you of that impression. I am a dummy, or a semi dummy at best; or worst, a half-wit imbecile who thought he could earn a living painting pictures -- that's how much I KNOW. A friend says my problem is that I'm "plumb eat up with dumb-ass". My experience of my self says I must agree with him.
Is it possible however, to talk about ideas ... to take the personas out of this and ask: What is the source of Bohm's understanding of the notion of logos or dia logos that he 'gives a special meaning to'? Bohm did not create the word, logos.
Bohm does specify the Greek logos. Bohm does specifically cite Parmenides and Heraclitus and other early Greek thinkers. Why we would ignore Bohm's specifications and citations? Is it for the purpose of acting and pretending GROUP THERAPY ON LINE? I seem to have heard that when writers cite someone as a source, they are effectively saying -- THIS IS IMPORTANT.
Thanks for the attention to this. I may not fit with db dialogue on line. I'm interested in what qm suggests for modern man, and have thought Bohm relates the mystery of qm with the mysterious nature of the Greek logos which is defined by the word mystery. I have imagined Bohm arrives at the logos notion because of the mysteries implied in qm discoveries.
I do not find it mysterious to ignore the 2700 year history of Parmenidian/Heraclitean notion of Greek logos -- though it is sure as hell strange.
Rodger, what logic (logos) is it that says we should ignore Bohm's having cited and been influenced by Parmenides and Heraclitus as well as influenced by the particular interpretation he read?
Anyone? -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 4:46 AM
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
Rodger __I get the impression Don L , that you are saying you KNOW that the source of Bohm s line of thinking can be traced to the material of Permenides and Heraclitus.
Do you think the word -source- gives meaning to past events/people, as a result of how -source- relates to our internal conscious presence? _R
.
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
Why not go back a lot further, as does Bohm, to Parmenides, Heraclitus?
-- Don L
.
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/268cd918/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 6 14:05:25 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 7 15:02:35 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
References: <OF2965EF36.146D05FF-ON852571FF.002E8B39-852571FF.00303CD2@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <003f01c6e93f$b7b287e0$db7e153f@DL01>
I get the impression Don L , that you are saying you KNOW that the source of Bohm s line of thinking can be traced to the material of Permenides and Heraclitus. -- Rodger
Is there another source for the words dialogue, dia logos, than Parmenides and Heraclitus? If Bohm cites the source, why would we ignore it? Why would we act or pretend that Bohm was not influenced by early Greek thought?
There's some confusion here, perhaps self-deception (part of the story of my life). Perhaps the confusion regards some difference between Bohm's writings and Bohm Dialogue Online. -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 4:46 AM
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
Rodger __I get the impression Don L , that you are saying you KNOW that the source of Bohm s line of thinking can be traced to the material of Permenides and Heraclitus.
Do you think the word -source- gives meaning to past events/people, as a result of how -source- relates to our internal conscious presence? _R
.
From: "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net>
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
Why not go back a lot further, as does Bohm, to Parmenides, Heraclitus?
-- Don L
.
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/6c31bed0/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Fri Oct 6 14:15:34 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Sat Oct 7 15:12:26 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
In-Reply-To: <20061007100003.D11B123947@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OFA3504C03.4D753123-ON852571FF.003E0308-852571FF.0043582A@dialogos.com>
Rodger __Hi Mark, Hi Kathryn, I really enjoyed this brief on pitch/ timbre
and transient.
I saw a correlation with voice skills, i.e. in the sci-fi DUNE and movie
STAR WARS, both stories told of how a human voice is able to deliberately
separate transient/ implicit meaning from words spoken -- explicit/
dictionary meaning.
We know how this happens unintentionally, when the sound of someones voice
does not -ring true- to their words. But the art of ringing ones truth in
tune with what one speaks seems to me to be developed in two very different
ways.
One way I would describe as transparent, i.e. Mahatma Gandhi -- the other
way I would describe as deceptive, i.e someone not very nice.
To use this skill, words take on secondary importance to the transient
sound in ones voice. A common example is seduction; a person can be talking
about anything, but if the transient meaning is being communicated clearly;
a listener can end up seduced -- or at least, hopefully, end up enjoying
the attempt.
In more advanced language skills, words and transient/ intonation are
aligned with precision to specify increasingly subtle/ influential
meanings. _R
.
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 04:43:47 EDT
From: MarkHarmer@aol.com
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
.
And one thing that really interested me is that there are two bits to a
sound, a
chaotic, completely atonal part called the "transient" and the steady-state
bit which carries the "pitch" and "timbre" (sound quality) of that pitch,
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/5469d4af/attachment.html
From Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com Fri Oct 6 14:45:13 2006
From: Rodger.Hyodo at dialogos.com (Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com)
Date: Sat Oct 7 16:13:52 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <20061007100003.D11B123947@web.internal.van-den-heuvel.org>
Message-ID: <OF6145CF44.26AD21FE-ON852571FF.004396CB-852571FF.00460F16@dialogos.com>
Rodger __Hi Kathryn, dont be so quick to assume your question is being
sidestepped. Unless one has an awful lot of free time for dialogue, there
are just too many topics and questions each day.
For a start, you sound like you might be up to date on areas of
neuroscience -- isnt it incredible how neurology, neurocardiology, etc,
have developed in the past 14 years, since David Bohm died?
So much of the context for what he might have known in the area of
neuroscience has been changed -- largely supporting his views of wholeness.
_R
.
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:35:51 -0400
From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
.
I cannot imagine that a man of his erudition had not explored all that
which preceded and was current with his
life.
.
.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/3ab634e8/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Fri Oct 6 16:51:09 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Sat Oct 7 17:48:17 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
In-Reply-To: <cbe.c1c85.32577143@aol.com>
Message-ID: <C14BE59D.35FB%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Fascinating. Especially since I have hearing loss. Most people don?t
enunciate well, drop their voices in both pitch and volume when they are
thinking or unsure of what they?re saying ? so that even with two hearing
aids turned up as high as they?ll go, plus reading lips, I can?t understand
them. I?m skimming the posts now. Will reread more completely later.
Thanks for surfacing, and yes ? if you?re busy, I can wait.
Best, k
On 10/6/06 4:43 AM, "MarkHarmer@aol.com" <MarkHarmer@aol.com> wrote:
> Hi Kathy,
>
> I'm around - just a bit distracted at the moment. But... I had to comment on
> this because it so resonates with some work I did a while ago.
>
> One of my passions has been physics and particularly the physics of sound -
> which is why I ended up recording / editing / broadcasting for so long. When
> I've created music for people I've often used sampling (of natural sounds) and
> their manipulation in order to create music / sound for community plays. We
> did one recently where most of the village took part in one form or another.
> The play ran outdoors for a week, and all the sounds were made up of things
> gathered locally in the village. The site's at http://www.mysteryplays.org/ if
> you want to see what it was all about.
>
> But as part of the process of sampling you learn quite a lot about sound. And
> one thing that really interested me is that there are two bits to a sound, a
> chaotic, completely atonal part called the "transient" and the steady-state
> bit which carries the "pitch" and "timbre" (sound quality) of that pitch, the
> bit where you see the harmonics do their dance as the note carries on.
>
> The transient is totally unmusical - and yet it's the transient, which can
> last about 0.1 seconds, which gives meaning to the note which follows. If we
> remove the transient we struggle to know what the note is. I've tried it - it
> really is amazing. The pitch stays the same, of course, because that
> information is part of the steady-state part of the waveform. But remove the
> transient and pianos become like violins, drums sound really weird, and a
> "pinged" wine-glass will sound like a harmonica - and you can also swap
> transients around and your brain will be fooled into thinking the instrument
> has changed. So, that initial 0.1 second carries a lot of the meaning. Not
> about the pitch, but about what instrument is playing.
>
> If you do this with words, you can swap around the transients and create
> totally different words. This is why people with hearing loss have such
> trouble - because everything suddenly becomes harder to understand, as if
> people are speaking in a foreign language. Missing out the transient clues
> (which are high-frequency) means that words have to be understood by their
> context - which makes jokes more difficult for people with hearing
> difficulties to understand, as jokes often depend on clashes between what's
> expected and what happens.
>
> I put some illustrations of this on the web at
> http://www.danceofdelight.com/AMOC/Assignment1/index.html
>
> However, the sounds don't work when you click the graphic - I don't know why.
> If you want to hear examples of transients and words, go lower down the page -
> the "regular" blue underlined links do work.
>
> The reason I put up the page, is that in organisational projects, often the
> chaos at the beginning is how we get a sense of what the project is about as
> it settles down. Miss out the chaos (either through not being there, or
> because the organisation wants to "tidy up" the initial chaotic process to
> make it seem like the project emerged perfect, and fully-formed) and often you
> will struggle to make meaning out of what follows.
>
> So I was trying to apply a principle of physics / acoustics to something much
> larger. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
>
> Mark
>> I see whatever the vibrations are that our ears pick up and our brain
>> interprets as sound to be as close to the Implicate Order as I can get in
>> the world of music. I guess this is the physics of sound.
>>
>>> >From there, we seem to go to the overtone series, one kind of enfolded
>> order, that is activated when we "create a disturbance in the energy" -
>> whatever that means - by plucking a string, singing a tone, depressing a
>> piano key, etc, etc.
>> What is that "energy" made of? What set it to vibrating? I'm stuck
>> thinking that something has to have caused the vibrations that continuously
>> flow from Implicate to Explicate order, and back again. I also think the
>> rate of vibration changes for various enfolded patterns - manifestations.
>> But if it does, why?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/a50528ba/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Fri Oct 6 17:10:22 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Sat Oct 7 18:07:07 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
In-Reply-To: <OFA3504C03.4D753123-ON852571FF.003E0308-852571FF.0043582A@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <C14BEA1E.35FE%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Hi Rodger ? You?re right. I believe that what you?re speaking of is what I
call ?speech music?. I?ve had some very interesting experiences with people
who claimed not to speak English, when I used English, but changed the voice
music and body language to give context to the exact opposite of what I
meant. I also focus on ?speech music? when I interact with horses, cats,
and dogs. I once cared for 27 horses who were accustomed to Spanish. The
music in my voice (I alternated between Spanish and English, careful to use
the same rhythms and intonations) bridged the bilingual gap, and allowed me
to care for horses recuperating from surgery and in pain, with no danger
whatsoever. And I?ve used it to extract from lyrics, the melodies I have
set them to. I have also read that music may have preceded speech. If so,
I suspect it was this. When hearing, gesture, and all the other things that
go into aural communication are stripped down to reading words, I find it
more difficult to get complete meaning, and depend a great deal on the
context clues in other words. I also hear the words in my inner hearing
when I read. Do you? Do you think this can be misleading? k
On 10/6/06 8:15 AM, "Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com" <Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com>
wrote:
> Rodger __Hi Mark, Hi Kathryn, I really enjoyed this brief on pitch/ timbre and
> transient.
>
> I saw a correlation with voice skills, i.e. in the sci-fi DUNE and movie STAR
> WARS, both stories told of how a human voice is able to deliberately separate
> transient/ implicit meaning from words spoken -- explicit/ dictionary meaning.
>
> We know how this happens unintentionally, when the sound of someones voice
> does not -ring true- to their words. But the art of ringing ones truth in
> tune with what one speaks seems to me to be developed in two very different
> ways.
>
> One way I would describe as transparent, i.e. Mahatma Gandhi -- the other way
> I would describe as deceptive, i.e someone not very nice.
>
> To use this skill, words take on secondary importance to the transient sound
> in ones voice. A common example is seduction; a person can be talking about
> anything, but if the transient meaning is being communicated clearly; a
> listener can end up seduced -- or at least, hopefully, end up enjoying the
> attempt.
>
> In more advanced language skills, words and transient/ intonation are aligned
> with precision to specify increasingly subtle/ influential meanings. _R
> .
> Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 04:43:47 EDT
> From: MarkHarmer@aol.com
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> .
> And one thing that really interested me is that there are two bits to a sound,
> a
> chaotic, completely atonal part called the "transient" and the steady-state
> bit which carries the "pitch" and "timbre" (sound quality) of that pitch,
> .
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/7ae7a70e/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Fri Oct 6 17:18:52 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Sat Oct 7 18:15:36 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
In-Reply-To: <OF6145CF44.26AD21FE-ON852571FF.004396CB-852571FF.00460F16@dialogos.com>
Message-ID: <C14BEC1C.3600%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Hi Rodger ? Yes, to most of what you say. I don?t know as much about the
precise things that have changed since Bohm died as I?d like to. You sound
as though you know a great deal about the topic, too. I try to be on guard
against giving people ?guru-status?, but my own personal applications of his
theories have rung true every time! I am delighted to know science largely
supports his views. I?d like to know also, where science proved him wrong.
So, I thank you. If you have time, perhaps you could briefly answer that
question.
Best, k
On 10/6/06 8:45 AM, "Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com" <Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com>
wrote:
> Rodger __Hi Kathryn, dont be so quick to assume your question is being
> sidestepped. Unless one has an awful lot of free time for dialogue, there are
> just too many topics and questions each day.
>
> For a start, you sound like you might be up to date on areas of neuroscience
> -- isnt it incredible how neurology, neurocardiology, etc, have developed in
> the past 14 years, since David Bohm died?
>
> So much of the context for what he might have known in the area of
> neuroscience has been changed -- largely supporting his views of wholeness. _R
> .
> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:35:51 -0400
> From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
> To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
> .
> I cannot imagine that a man of his erudition had not explored all that which
> preceded and was current with his
> life.
> .
> .
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/6649a746/attachment.html
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Fri Oct 6 17:33:21 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Sat Oct 7 18:30:08 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] a fragment
In-Reply-To: <20061005.220435.532.0.franis_franis@juno.com>
Message-ID: <C14BEF81.3606%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Thanks, Franis. Photography is not one of my hobbies. I posted the picture
with the intent of its being an image that carried a wordless communication.
I saw it as connected with a thread we pursued a week or so ago on alternate
modes of communication. For me, the photo could be interpreted in several
different ways, all connected to our group. If that's not permitted, I'll
stick to words. k
On 10/6/06 1:04 AM, "Franis Engel" <franis_franis@juno.com> wrote:
> Hi Kathryn,
> I happen to know Naomi Remen; she works at Commonweal, a local .org
> around Bolinas.
> Owen runs a forum that nobody is yet using for dialoging, but I believe
> that it allows you to post pics; I'm not sure.
> http://owenthomas.noosworld.com/forum1/index.php
> I just checked it out, you can post pics! Look in the "forum features."
> Franis
>
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 10:30:15 -0400 Kathryn Arizmendi
> <tangykatt@earthlink.net> writes:
>>
>> "Much of life can never be explained but only witnessed."
>> - Rachel Naomi Remen, MD
>>
>> The attachment comes from me ? it?s a photo. k
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
From tangykatt at earthlink.net Fri Oct 6 17:35:18 2006
From: tangykatt at earthlink.net (Kathryn Arizmendi)
Date: Sat Oct 7 18:32:02 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
In-Reply-To: <001501c6e934$33260a20$db7e153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <C14BEFF6.3607%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Are we seeing a corollary between the physics of hearing and optics?
I found something on that somewhere. When I run across it again, I'll give
you the reference. k
On 10/6/06 6:42 AM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
> Are we seeing a corollary between the physics of hearing and optics?
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 6 18:02:11 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 7 18:59:52 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
References: <C14BEFF6.3607%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <001a01c6e960$d2e40950$5a05153f@DL01>
Please do. Bohm presents some views on the physics of optics ... perhaps in
Wholeness ... which I interpret as meaning when light interacts with retina
a feedback loop occurs, back-action (N's 3rd), and also memory is activated
and something 'sort of' made up as to 'what is out there'. -- Don L
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathryn Arizmendi" <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
> Are we seeing a corollary between the physics of hearing and optics?
>
> I found something on that somewhere. When I run across it again, I'll
> give
> you the reference. k
>
>
> On 10/6/06 6:42 AM, "Don Lay" <donlay@gte.net> wrote:
>
>> Are we seeing a corollary between the physics of hearing and optics?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 6 18:10:20 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 7 19:07:29 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
References: <cbe.c1c85.32577143@aol.com> <002601c6e936$187f75b0$db7e153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <003301c6e961$ee593100$5a05153f@DL01>
Further ... I wonder if that part of that 0.01 second could also be the time it takes for TAS sub-systems to "make something" up to project as "in here - out there". The thought occurs of relating this "transient" to logos as meaning ... intention instead of to the personal identity.
Resonance anyone??? -- dbl
So, that initial 0.1 second carries a lot of the meaning. Not about the pitch, but about what instrument is playing. -- Mark
Mark, the thought occurs of the "transient" as relating not just to the instrument but to the Whole dia the instrument.
Further ...
Does this fit? -- Don L
----- Original Message -----
From: MarkHarmer@aol.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 4:43 AM
Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
Hi Kathy,
I'm around - just a bit distracted at the moment. But... I had to comment on this because it so resonates with some work I did a while ago.
One of my passions has been physics and particularly the physics of sound - which is why I ended up recording / editing / broadcasting for so long. When I've created music for people I've often used sampling (of natural sounds) and their manipulation in order to create music / sound for community plays. We did one recently where most of the village took part in one form or another. The play ran outdoors for a week, and all the sounds were made up of things gathered locally in the village. The site's at http://www.mysteryplays.org/ if you want to see what it was all about.
But as part of the process of sampling you learn quite a lot about sound. And one thing that really interested me is that there are two bits to a sound, a chaotic, completely atonal part called the "transient" and the steady-state bit which carries the "pitch" and "timbre" (sound quality) of that pitch, the bit where you see the harmonics do their dance as the note carries on.
The transient is totally unmusical - and yet it's the transient, which can last about 0.1 seconds, which gives meaning to the note which follows. If we remove the transient we struggle to know what the note is. I've tried it - it really is amazing. The pitch stays the same, of course, because that information is part of the steady-state part of the waveform. But remove the transient and pianos become like violins, drums sound really weird, and a "pinged" wine-glass will sound like a harmonica - and you can also swap transients around and your brain will be fooled into thinking the instrument has changed. So, that initial 0.1 second carries a lot of the meaning. Not about the pitch, but about what instrument is playing.
If you do this with words, you can swap around the transients and create totally different words. This is why people with hearing loss have such trouble - because everything suddenly becomes harder to understand, as if people are speaking in a foreign language. Missing out the transient clues (which are high-frequency) means that words have to be understood by their context - which makes jokes more difficult for people with hearing difficulties to understand, as jokes often depend on clashes between what's expected and what happens.
I put some illustrations of this on the web at http://www.danceofdelight.com/AMOC/Assignment1/index.html
However, the sounds don't work when you click the graphic - I don't know why. If you want to hear examples of transients and words, go lower down the page - the "regular" blue underlined links do work.
The reason I put up the page, is that in organisational projects, often the chaos at the beginning is how we get a sense of what the project is about as it settles down. Miss out the chaos (either through not being there, or because the organisation wants to "tidy up" the initial chaotic process to make it seem like the project emerged perfect, and fully-formed) and often you will struggle to make meaning out of what follows.
So I was trying to apply a principle of physics / acoustics to something much larger. I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Mark
I see whatever the vibrations are that our ears pick up and our brain
interprets as sound to be as close to the Implicate Order as I can get in
the world of music. I guess this is the physics of sound.
>From there, we seem to go to the overtone series, one kind of enfolded
order, that is activated when we "create a disturbance in the energy" -
whatever that means - by plucking a string, singing a tone, depressing a
piano key, etc, etc.
What is that "energy" made of? What set it to vibrating? I'm stuck
thinking that something has to have caused the vibrations that continuously
flow from Implicate to Explicate order, and back again. I also think the
rate of vibration changes for various enfolded patterns - manifestations.
But if it does, why?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/f3462f3b/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Oct 6 19:11:50 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sat Oct 7 20:14:47 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
Message-ID: <20061006.131651.3964.147.ae.dropper@juno.com>
I get the impression Don L , that you are saying you KNOW that the source
of Bohm s line of thinking can be traced to the material of Permenides
and Heraclitus. -- Rodger
Is there another source for the words dialogue, dia logos, than
Parmenides and Heraclitus? If Bohm cites the source, why would we ignore
it? Why would we act or pretend that Bohm was not influenced by early
Greek thought?
There's some confusion here, perhaps self-deception (part of the story of
my life). Perhaps the confusion regards some difference between Bohm's
writings and Bohm Dialogue Online. -- Don L
Bohm WAS the quintessential "source" guy. Gadszooks!
He was so "sourcey" that we struggle now with things like
"meanings of meanings."
But the attraction to "sourciness" can easily be lost to those
whose interests [paths?] are other than "through meanings of words."
Utter Clarity about meanings [of words and word combinations]
is a way that dead ends itself into POOF! - Silence. Into POOF!
- utter clarity. Into POOF! - Freedom.
Often it is paradox that collapses the structure just 'prior'
to the clarity. Para Dox is "Beyond Opinion."* (Interestingly,
Permenides worked with the "Dox" term a lot. Appearances. Opinions.
Perceptions).
*There are only 3 "dox" words in the dictionary.
Orthodox - Right Opinion.
Heterodox - Other Opinion.
Paradox - Beyond Opinion
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/063adb48/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Oct 6 18:54:27 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sat Oct 7 20:14:48 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
Message-ID: <20061006.131651.3964.146.ae.dropper@juno.com>
I get the impression Don L , that you are saying you KNOW ... -- Rodger
Please let me disabuse you of that impression. I am a dummy, or a semi
dummy at best; or worst, a half-wit imbecile who thought he could earn a
living painting pictures -- that's how much I KNOW. A friend says my
problem is that I'm "plumb eat up with dumb-ass". My experience of my
self says I must agree with him.
Is it possible however, to talk about ideas ... to take the personas out
of this and ask: What is the source of Bohm's understanding of the notion
of logos or dia logos that he 'gives a special meaning to'? Bohm did not
create the word, logos.
Bohm does specify the Greek logos. Bohm does specifically cite
Parmenides and Heraclitus and other early Greek thinkers. Why we would
ignore Bohm's specifications and citations? Is it for the purpose of
acting and pretending GROUP THERAPY ON LINE? I seem to have heard that
when writers cite someone as a source, they are effectively saying --
THIS IS IMPORTANT.
Thanks for the attention to this. I may not fit with db dialogue on
line. I'm interested in what qm suggests for modern man, and have
thought Bohm relates the mystery of qm with the mysterious nature of the
Greek logos which is defined by the word mystery. I have imagined Bohm
arrives at the logos notion because of the mysteries implied in qm
discoveries.
I do not find it mysterious to ignore the 2700 year history of
Parmenidian/Heraclitean notion of Greek logos -- though it is sure as
hell strange.
Rodger, what logic (logos) is it that says we should ignore Bohm's having
cited and been influenced by Parmenides and Heraclitus as well as
influenced by the particular interpretation he read?
Anyone? -- Don L
Last night I spent a couple of hours googling encyclopedias on
Parmenidian philosophy. As a bohm scholar one can get a strong sense of
bohm connection to this and other greek stuff. It is a pleasure seeing
the many connections. That Parmenides was first or among the first
doesn't have to mean that bohm got certain ideas directly from
Parmenides, or entirely, because these early philosophies were also taken
up by later philosophers and schools of thought. Bohm very often referred
to Greek thought and Greek etymologies in the three day, Ojai seminars
[of which there were eleven]. There was even a woman that attended many
of these seminars that was a whiz at Greek etymologies, that Bohm often
asked to clarify or confirm Greek meanings of words. Bohm himself was, of
course, a master of the etymological meanings, sharing this passion with
both Krishnamurti and Barfield [who wrote an entire book on origins of
word meanings]. Although certain terms were key terms to bohm such as
Necessity, Meaning, Logos, What Is, Possibility, etc., specific term
connections are unnecessary and would most certainly distract from what
is more important here which is that one can get a very edifying SENSE of
a connection or continuity in certain directions when looking openly at
Greek thought if there is familiarity with the Bohm seminars on thought.
Logos is particularly interesting. Not for everyone of course, or even
many. We are each attracted by different things (and when a couple of us
share a particular interest - that is a treat). I was attracted to
"Logos" at a very young age. It was one of the big "mysteries" and a part
of the "mystery" of the "Trinity" which I went on to giving a lifetime of
attention. That the "Trinity" was "corrupted" by the Catholic Church was
something that was easy to discover by studying comparative religion and
mythology, including the millenniums of goddess religions which were
studied during the 70's & 80's. The mystery of the "trinity" has not been
a mystery for many years now. It is a feature of every lasting religion
and mythology. It simply refers to any and all variations of self, other,
and the connection between, or oneness of the "two." Various philosophers
give various "characteristics" to each "member" of the "Trinity." I have
a collection of these variations somewhere.
But it wasn't until Don L. started talking about Logos a few years back
that I had "access" to the "evolution" and "political takeover" of
"Logos." For Bohm this would have been a combination of an easy night's
research into the roots of one of his most favored terms, and reason for
more than one night's research because of the deep pleasure that such
"roots" could give him.
But what bohm did at night, any night, misses the point. One seems to
need to talk about this stuff but only by way of introduction, perhaps
having the kind of necessity that the "transient" (of recent musical
posts) provides.
The heart of what is being said here is that it is no surprise that a
person or two or three, who have a deep affinity with bohm's love of
roots, and for bohm dialogue, will be interested in the origins of the
terms of dia-logos, and could have reasons worth hearing. Objections to
the content of such studies have proven to be a distraction from the
content. What is this about? Why object so much?
Are not objections to content, "truth" objections? Is one not saying, by
objecting, "What you are saying is not true; what I have to say about
this is what is true.?"
Bohm often cautioned that we are not looking for truth in the content of
dialogue because it is such [defense of] "truths" that are at the bottom
of the conflicts that block the creative flowering that is possible 'by
means of the meaning of the word" [dia - logos].
"Your gaze is on coherence and incoherence and that's enough." This was a
response by bohm when asked "What is it that we do in a dialogue?"
What is coherence but the pleasure of clarity? There is a "bone marrow"
depth of coherence that can 'occur' with an openness* of exchange here,
the openness that IS {and carries, and shares] unsullied truth itself.
*suspension of 'truth in content', i.e., welcoming a state of Primary
Incoherence** [not knowing] -
of the simple and non self - sustaining variety,
**Primary and Secondary Incoherence were key terms for bohm. The first
[simple not knowing] was as necessary as Coherence [clarity of thought].
Secondary Incoherence is "Self - Sustaining Confusion" [anxiety obout
simple "not knowing"] which is "endemic in the culture."
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/b4c5104b/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Oct 6 19:33:04 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sat Oct 7 20:33:12 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
Message-ID: <20061006.133430.3964.149.ae.dropper@juno.com>
VERY interesting connection possibility. Wonder if this can actually be
pursued here.
That (0.01 second) can seem longer than that (maybe a half second) where
there is awareness of thought "kicking in" with its often
contradictory[?] "stories" about what
"occurs."
This is especially apparent regarding the "I did it" [thought] of
"decision making."
pat
Further ... I wonder if that part of that 0.01 second could also be the
time it takes for TAS sub-systems to "make something" up to project as
"in here - out there". The thought occurs of relating this "transient"
to logos as meaning ... intention instead of to the personal identity.
Resonance anyone??? -- dbl
So, that initial 0.1 second carries a lot of the meaning. Not about the
pitch, but about what instrument is playing. -- Mark
Mark, the thought occurs of the "transient" as relating not just to the
instrument but to the Whole dia the instrument.
Further ...
Does this fit? -- Don L
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/b0b92bf0/attachment.html
From zoechuzero at yahoo.com Fri Oct 6 19:38:54 2006
From: zoechuzero at yahoo.com (Zoe Chu)
Date: Sat Oct 7 20:35:41 2006
Subject: AW: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
In-Reply-To: <20061005.173919.3964.141.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <20061006173854.9171.qmail@web55015.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Kris --- Her sense of self-worth is constituted
symbolically, her cherished narcissism feeds on symbols, on
an abstract idea of his own worth, an idea composed of
sounds, words, and images, in the air, in the mind, on paper.
And this means that man's natural yearning for organismic
activity, the pleasures of incorporation and expansion, can
be fed limitlessly in the domain of symbols and so into
immortality. The single organism can expand into dimensions
of worlds and times without moving a physical limb; it can
take eternity into itself even as it gaspingly dies.
Pat
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 15:09:28 -0400 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
> "Kirsten" & "Zoe" seem reminiscent of "One" & "Another." [2 characters in one peson]
>
> pat
Now the "Kirsten" [Kris] [Hotmail] character writes from
the "Zoe" [Yahoo] character's e-mail address.
Maybe ""Zoe" is dozing over in the MIT sleep lab while "Kbot"
hijacks her computer?
pat
~~
(from "Zoe" @Yahoo today)
Kathryn , Tas is Though-As-a-System (a book also by Bohm), the 'whole' thinkg, you see... the super&structure that runs the show.
As far as what it allows w/o breakdown:
It pretty&ugly&much&little boils down to:
DENIAL & REPRESSION & DECEPTION & LIES & ACTING & PRETENDING etc etc etc....
good reading on that to start with: Ernest Becker's "denial of death" [I will send you a link to a private website that has a fair amount of the book online,,, but you cant post the link, copy-right issues!]. also: sigmund freud's "civilization and its discontents" [very tasty little pamphlet]... I am in a rush now... Ciao, Kris
Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net> wrote:
Whatever TAS is - what DOES it allow without causing a breakdown? Thanks, k
On 10/5/06 2:03 PM, "kirsten schneide" wrote:
> Thought going (trying to) after thought
>
> Is a malfunction (disorder) of the system (TAS)
>
> It is, literally, a sick proposal (thinkg)
>
> And (pushed to the 'extreme') TAS will not
>
> 'Allow" this
>
> A 'shut-down' (some liken to call it: mental disorder) is eminent ....
>
> Go for it Subscriber, if that is what you are:
>
> "Dying for"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kirsten," beentheredonethat"
>
>
>> From: Kathryn Arizmendi
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
>> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:35:51 -0400
>>
>> Yesterday I requested clarification of the statements below, especially >
>>
>> "How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!)". Perhaps,
>> in my haste to leave, I did not explain well.
>>
>> I previously posted, asking if there have been correlations between the
>> recent findings of cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception
>> and
>> intelligence. No one responded, so I assumed this was not an area too
>> often
>> investigated by our group members.
>>
>> When you made the statement I just quoted, I inferred and hoped that you
>> might have some information on the relationship of recent developments in
>> cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception and intelligence that
>> you would/could share. Further, that and physics are the only areas that I
>> can think of where Bohm's thinking might have been amplified by scientific
>> experiments performed after his death. I cannot imagine that a man of his
>> erudition had not explored all that which preceded and was current with his
>> life.
>>
>> How the brain (housed in and connected to our bodies) works - certainly has
>> bearing on dialog, definitions, meaning, the meaning of meaning, and all
>> things related. It certainly is a component of "nature" as the intrinsic or
>> essential character of somebody or something. It is of great importance
>> because of its implications for the educational system, hence global
>> society, and special interest for me because I am a teacher.
>>
>> I am hoping you (as well as our other members) have some information you
>> are willing to share, best, k
>>
>>
>> On 10/4/06 4:27 PM, "kirsten schneide" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Neither David Bohm nor Donf have understood the nature of the humanimal
>>>
>>> (A hand full plus of decades on this planet have not done the "trick") :
>>>
>>>
>>> The 'last' thinkg the humanimal wants is to get (to) this
>>> "communication-thinkgiii
>>>
>>> Bohm/Dlialog 's drooling about ~ promisingsongsing to 'open'
>> the
>>> flood&gate to
>>>
>>> How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!) ~
>> e
>>> vent u all y
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All wet & dreams ....
>>>
>>> But enter taming to watch, non-the-less
>>>
>>> Keep it up, Subscribed-ones!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Love & Pleasure, Kbot
>>> --------------------------
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>>
>>>
>>>> YES, AND
>>>>
>>>> Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time and
>>>> Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of Dialogue
>> is
>>>> not to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in
>>>> communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them
>> directly.
>>>> It is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In Dialogue we are
>>>> ready to raise topics serious enough to cause trouble. But while we
>> are
>>>> talking we are interested in being aware of what's going on inside us
>> and
>>>> between us. D Bohm
>>>>
>>>> Don
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/ae1ec1b3/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Oct 6 19:54:06 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sat Oct 7 20:52:16 2006
Subject: AW: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
Message-ID: <20061006.135423.3964.151.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Now we have another Pat writing from Zoe's MIT sleep lab?
pat
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:38:54 -0700 (PDT) Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
writes:
Kris --- Her sense of self-worth is constituted
symbolically, her cherished narcissism feeds on symbols, on
an abstract idea of his own worth, an idea composed of
sounds, words, and images, in the air, in the mind, on paper.
And this means that man's natural yearning for organismic
activity, the pleasures of incorporation and expansion, can
be fed limitlessly in the domain of symbols and so into
immortality. The single organism can expand into dimensions
of worlds and times without moving a physical limb; it can
take eternity into itself even as it gaspingly dies.
Pat
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 15:09:28 -0400 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
> "Kirsten" & "Zoe" seem reminiscent of "One" & "Another." [2 characters
in one peson]
>
> pat
Now the "Kirsten" [Kris] [Hotmail] character writes from
the "Zoe" [Yahoo] character's e-mail address.
Maybe ""Zoe" is dozing over in the MIT sleep lab while "Kbot"
hijacks her computer?
pat
~~
(from "Zoe" @Yahoo today)
Kathryn , Tas is Though-As-a-System (a book also by Bohm), the 'whole'
thinkg, you see... the super&structure that runs the show.
As far as what it allows w/o breakdown:
It pretty&ugly&much&little boils down to:
DENIAL & REPRESSION & DECEPTION & LIES & ACTING & PRETENDING etc etc
etc....
good reading on that to start with: Ernest Becker's "denial of death" [I
will send you a link to a private website that has a fair amount of the
book online,,, but you cant post the link, copy-right issues!]. also:
sigmund freud's "civilization and its discontents" [very tasty little
pamphlet]... I am in a rush now... Ciao, Kris
Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net> wrote:
Whatever TAS is - what DOES it allow without causing a breakdown? Thanks,
k
On 10/5/06 2:03 PM, "kirsten schneide" wrote:
> Thought going (trying to) after thought
>
> Is a malfunction (disorder) of the system (TAS)
>
> It is, literally, a sick proposal (thinkg)
>
> And (pushed to the 'extreme') TAS will not
>
> 'Allow" this
>
> A 'shut-down' (some liken to call it: mental disorder) is eminent ....
>
> Go for it Subscriber, if that is what you are:
>
> "Dying for"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kirsten," beentheredonethat"
>
>
>> From: Kathryn Arizmendi
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
>> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:35:51 -0400
>>
>> Yesterday I requested clarification of the statements below,
especially >
>>
>> "How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!)".
Perhaps,
>> in my haste to leave, I did not explain well.
>>
>> I previously posted, asking if there have been correlations between
the
>> recent findings of cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on
perception
>> and
>> intelligence. No one responded, so I assumed this was not an area too
>> often
>> investigated by our group members.
>>
>> When you made the statement I just quoted, I inferred and hoped that
you
>> might have some information on the relationship of recent developments
in
>> cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception and intelligence
that
>> you would/could share. Further, that and physics are the only areas
that I
>> can think of where Bohm's thinking might have been amplified by
scientific
>> experiments performed after his death. I cannot imagine that a man of
his
>> erudition had not explored all that which preceded and was current
with his
>> life.
>>
>> How the brain (housed in and connected to our bodies) works -
certainly has
>> bearing on dialog, definitions, meaning, the meaning of meaning, and
all
>> things related. It certainly is a component of "nature" as the
intrinsic or
>> essential character of somebody or something. It is of great
importance
>> because of its implications for the educational system, hence global
>> society, and special interest for me because I am a teacher.
>>
>> I am hoping you (as well as our other members) have some information
you
>> are willing to share, best, k
>>
>>
>> On 10/4/06 4:27 PM, "kirsten schneide" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Neither David Bohm nor Donf have understood the nature of the
humanimal
>>>
>>> (A hand full plus of decades on this planet have not done the
"trick") :
>>>
>>>
>>> The 'last' thinkg the humanimal wants is to get (to) this
>>> "communication-thinkgiii
>>>
>>> Bohm/Dlialog 's drooling about ~ promisingsongsing to 'open'
>> the
>>> flood&gate to
>>>
>>> How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!) ~
>> e
>>> vent u all y
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All wet & dreams ....
>>>
>>> But enter taming to watch, non-the-less
>>>
>>> Keep it up, Subscribed-ones!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Love & Pleasure, Kbot
>>> --------------------------
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>>
>>>
>>>> YES, AND
>>>>
>>>> Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time and
>>>> Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of Dialogue
>> is
>>>> not to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in
>>>> communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them
>> directly.
>>>> It is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In Dialogue we
are
>>>> ready to raise topics serious enough to cause trouble. But while we
>> are
>>>> talking we are interested in being aware of what's going on inside
us
>> and
>>>> between us. D Bohm
>>>>
>>>> Don
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+
countries) for 2?/min or less.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/12c87b8d/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Oct 6 20:57:09 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sat Oct 7 21:54:16 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
Message-ID: <20061006.145709.3964.152.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Don L, forgive my wrongness or my tardiness
(whichever applies) but there is a flashing of a
sense that Logos IS Meaning.
If this is coherent or if it is consistent with
what you would like to say, it would seem significant
in that bohm Always qualified the Logos part of Dia Logos
in his reference being not to "the word" but to "the meaning
[of the word]."
pat
From zoechuzero at yahoo.com Fri Oct 6 21:14:52 2006
From: zoechuzero at yahoo.com (Zoe Chu)
Date: Sat Oct 7 22:11:36 2006
Subject: AW: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
In-Reply-To: <20061006.135423.3964.151.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <20061006191452.40198.qmail@web55015.mail.re4.yahoo.com>
Pat - A friend is one before whom I may think aloud. A man of genius is privileged only as far as he is genius. His dullness is as insupportable as any other dullness. Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions. All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better. Insist on yourself; never imitate... Every great man is unique. Every hero becomes a bore at last. --- Don
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote: Now we have another Pat writing from Zoe's MIT sleep lab?
pat
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:38:54 -0700 (PDT) Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com> writes:
Kris --- Her sense of self-worth is constituted
symbolically, her cherished narcissism feeds on symbols, on
an abstract idea of his own worth, an idea composed of
sounds, words, and images, in the air, in the mind, on paper.
And this means that man's natural yearning for organismic
activity, the pleasures of incorporation and expansion, can
be fed limitlessly in the domain of symbols and so into
immortality. The single organism can expand into dimensions
of worlds and times without moving a physical limb; it can
take eternity into itself even as it gaspingly dies.
Pat
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 15:09:28 -0400 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
> "Kirsten" & "Zoe" seem reminiscent of "One" & "Another." [2 characters in one peson]
>
> pat
Now the "Kirsten" [Kris] [Hotmail] character writes from
the "Zoe" [Yahoo] character's e-mail address.
Maybe ""Zoe" is dozing over in the MIT sleep lab while "Kbot"
hijacks her computer?
pat
~~
(from "Zoe" @Yahoo today)
Kathryn , Tas is Though-As-a-System (a book also by Bohm), the 'whole' thinkg, you see... the super&structure that runs the show.
As far as what it allows w/o breakdown:
It pretty&ugly&much&little boils down to:
DENIAL & REPRESSION & DECEPTION & LIES & ACTING & PRETENDING etc etc etc....
good reading on that to start with: Ernest Becker's "denial of death" [I will send you a link to a private website that has a fair amount of the book online,,, but you cant post the link, copy-right issues!]. also: sigmund freud's "civilization and its discontents" [very tasty little pamphlet]... I am in a rush now... Ciao, Kris
Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net> wrote:
Whatever TAS is - what DOES it allow without causing a breakdown? Thanks, k
On 10/5/06 2:03 PM, "kirsten schneide" wrote:
> Thought going (trying to) after thought
>
> Is a malfunction (disorder) of the system (TAS)
>
> It is, literally, a sick proposal (thinkg)
>
> And (pushed to the 'extreme') TAS will not
>
> 'Allow" this
>
> A 'shut-down' (some liken to call it: mental disorder) is eminent ....
>
> Go for it Subscriber, if that is what you are:
>
> "Dying for"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kirsten," beentheredonethat"
>
>
>> From: Kathryn Arizmendi
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
>> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:35:51 -0400
>>
>> Yesterday I requested clarification of the statements below, especially >
>>
>> "How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!)". Perhaps,
>> in my haste to leave, I did not explain well.
>>
>> I previously posted, asking if there have been correlations between the
>> recent findings of cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception
>> and
>> intelligence. No one responded, so I assumed this was not an area too
>> often
>> investigated by our group members.
>>
>> When you made the statement I just quoted, I inferred and hoped that you
>> might have some information on the relationship of recent developments in
>> cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception and intelligence that
>> you would/could share. Further, that and physics are the only areas that I
>> can think of where Bohm's thinking might have been amplified by scientific
>> experiments performed after his death. I cannot imagine that a man of his
>> erudition had not explored all that which preceded and was current with his
>> life.
>>
>> How the brain (housed in and connected to our bodies) works - certainly has
>> bearing on dialog, definitions, meaning, the meaning of meaning, and all
>> things related. It certainly is a component of "nature" as the intrinsic or
>> essential character of somebody or something. It is of great importance
>> because of its implications for the educational system, hence global
>> society, and special interest for me because I am a teacher.
>>
>> I am hoping you (as well as our other members) have some information you
>> are willing to share, best, k
>>
>>
>> On 10/4/06 4:27 PM, "kirsten schneide" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Neither David Bohm nor Donf have understood the nature of the humanimal
>>>
>>> (A hand full plus of decades on this planet have not done the "trick") :
>>>
>>>
>>> The 'last' thinkg the humanimal wants is to get (to) this
>>> "communication-thinkgiii
>>>
>>> Bohm/Dlialog 's drooling about ~ promisingsongsing to 'open'
>> the
>>> flood&gate to
>>>
>>> How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!) ~
>> e
>>> vent u all y
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All wet & dreams ....
>>>
>>> But enter taming to watch, non-the-less
>>>
>>> Keep it up, Subscribed-ones!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Love & Pleasure, Kbot
>>> --------------------------
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>>
>>>
>>>> YES, AND
>>>>
>>>> Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time and
>>>> Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of Dialogue
>> is
>>>> not to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in
>>>> communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them
>> directly.
>>>> It is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In Dialogue we are
>>>> ready to raise topics serious enough to cause trouble. But while we
>> are
>>>> talking we are interested in being aware of what's going on inside us
>> and
>>>> between us. D Bohm
>>>>
>>>> Don
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2?/min or less.
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
---------------------------------
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/1dadfe49/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 6 21:14:30 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 7 22:12:12 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
References: <20061006.131651.3964.146.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <001c01c6e97b$c19c8f30$3f0e153f@DL01>
Very nice treatment! -- dbl
**Primary and Secondary Incoherence were key terms for bohm. The first [simple not knowing] was as necessary as Coherence [clarity of thought]. Secondary Incoherence is "Self - Sustaining Confusion" [anxiety about simple "not knowing"] which is "endemic in the culture." -- pat
Special thanks for this clear presentation re Primary and Secondary Incoherence. I have not "deeply seen" the connection of the latter with the notion of "Self-Sustaining Confusion" until reading this.
It's really strange... this anxiety about simple "not knowing". At times it seems to suggest that one has a deficit, a blemish, that one is somehow tainted with irremovable 'sin' and therefore plagued with unrelenting anxiety. Looking at this now the thought occurs that it is the self-image use without awareness that is problematic.
Do we say the mechanical, reflexive self-imagery (content) does not know because it is only imagery? However, the anxiety created by the imaginary not knowing of the image is "always real" (Bohm) ... Content may or may not be real, but function is always real.
Does anxiety, what Tillich calls neurotic anxiety, occur because of Bohm refers to as the fracturing so splitting of content and function? -- Don L
ps: Would this 'make plain' the guilt of Kafka's* character, Joseph K, re the trial? I cannot recall the title.
* Franz Kafka, 1883-1924 : Austrian writer whose stories, such as "The Metamorphosis" (1916), and novels, including The Trial (1925) and The Castle (1926), concern troubled individuals in a nightmarishly impersonal world.[1]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright ? 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright ? 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved.
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
I get the impression Don L , that you are saying you KNOW ... -- Rodger
Please let me disabuse you of that impression. I am a dummy, or a semi dummy at best; or worst, a half-wit imbecile who thought he could earn a living painting pictures -- that's how much I KNOW. A friend says my problem is that I'm "plumb eat up with dumb-ass". My experience of my self says I must agree with him.
Is it possible however, to talk about ideas ... to take the personas out of this and ask: What is the source of Bohm's understanding of the notion of logos or dia logos that he 'gives a special meaning to'? Bohm did not create the word, logos.
Bohm does specify the Greek logos. Bohm does specifically cite Parmenides and Heraclitus and other early Greek thinkers. Why we would ignore Bohm's specifications and citations? Is it for the purpose of acting and pretending GROUP THERAPY ON LINE? I seem to have heard that when writers cite someone as a source, they are effectively saying -- THIS IS IMPORTANT.
Thanks for the attention to this. I may not fit with db dialogue on line. I'm interested in what qm suggests for modern man, and have thought Bohm relates the mystery of qm with the mysterious nature of the Greek logos which is defined by the word mystery. I have imagined Bohm arrives at the logos notion because of the mysteries implied in qm discoveries.
I do not find it mysterious to ignore the 2700 year history of Parmenidian/Heraclitean notion of Greek logos -- though it is sure as hell strange.
Rodger, what logic (logos) is it that says we should ignore Bohm's having cited and been influenced by Parmenides and Heraclitus as well as influenced by the particular interpretation he read?
Anyone? -- Don L
Last night I spent a couple of hours googling encyclopedias on Parmenidian philosophy. As a bohm scholar one can get a strong sense of bohm connection to this and other greek stuff. It is a pleasure seeing the many connections. That Parmenides was first or among the first doesn't have to mean that bohm got certain ideas directly from Parmenides, or entirely, because these early philosophies were also taken up by later philosophers and schools of thought. Bohm very often referred to Greek thought and Greek etymologies in the three day, Ojai seminars [of which there were eleven]. There was even a woman that attended many of these seminars that was a whiz at Greek etymologies, that Bohm often asked to clarify or confirm Greek meanings of words. Bohm himself was, of course, a master of the etymological meanings, sharing this passion with both Krishnamurti and Barfield [who wrote an entire book on origins of word meanings]. Although certain terms were key terms to bohm such as Necessity, Meaning, Logos, What Is, Possibility, etc., specific term connections are unnecessary and would most certainly distract from what is more important here which is that one can get a very edifying SENSE of a connection or continuity in certain directions when looking openly at Greek thought if there is familiarity with the Bohm seminars on thought.
Logos is particularly interesting. Not for everyone of course, or even many. We are each attracted by different things (and when a couple of us share a particular interest - that is a treat). I was attracted to "Logos" at a very young age. It was one of the big "mysteries" and a part of the "mystery" of the "Trinity" which I went on to giving a lifetime of attention. That the "Trinity" was "corrupted" by the Catholic Church was something that was easy to discover by studying comparative religion and mythology, including the millenniums of goddess religions which were studied during the 70's & 80's. The mystery of the "trinity" has not been a mystery for many years now. It is a feature of every lasting religion and mythology. It simply refers to any and all variations of self, other, and the connection between, or oneness of the "two." Various philosophers give various "characteristics" to each "member" of the "Trinity." I have a collection of these variations somewhere.
But it wasn't until Don L. started talking about Logos a few years back that I had "access" to the "evolution" and "political takeover" of "Logos." For Bohm this would have been a combination of an easy night's research into the roots of one of his most favored terms, and reason for more than one night's research because of the deep pleasure that such "roots" could give him.
But what bohm did at night, any night, misses the point. One seems to need to talk about this stuff but only by way of introduction, perhaps having the kind of necessity that the "transient" (of recent musical posts) provides.
The heart of what is being said here is that it is no surprise that a person or two or three, who have a deep affinity with bohm's love of roots, and for bohm dialogue, will be interested in the origins of the terms of dia-logos, and could have reasons worth hearing. Objections to the content of such studies have proven to be a distraction from the content. What is this about? Why object so much?
Are not objections to content, "truth" objections? Is one not saying, by objecting, "What you are saying is not true; what I have to say about this is what is true.?"
Bohm often cautioned that we are not looking for truth in the content of dialogue because it is such [defense of] "truths" that are at the bottom of the conflicts that block the creative flowering that is possible 'by means of the meaning of the word" [dia - logos].
"Your gaze is on coherence and incoherence and that's enough." This was a response by bohm when asked "What is it that we do in a dialogue?"
What is coherence but the pleasure of clarity? There is a "bone marrow" depth of coherence that can 'occur' with an openness* of exchange here, the openness that IS {and carries, and shares] unsullied truth itself.
*suspension of 'truth in content', i.e., welcoming a state of Primary Incoherence** [not knowing] -
of the simple and non self - sustaining variety,
**Primary and Secondary Incoherence were key terms for bohm. The first [simple not knowing] was as necessary as Coherence [clarity of thought]. Secondary Incoherence is "Self - Sustaining Confusion" [anxiety obout simple "not knowing"] which is "endemic in the culture."
pat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/ed1d712b/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 6 21:21:19 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 7 22:18:28 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
References: <20061006.131651.3964.147.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <003f01c6e97c$9f763ae0$3f0e153f@DL01>
*There are only 3 "dox" words in the dictionary.
Orthodox - Right Opinion.
Heterodox - Other Opinion.
Paradox - Beyond Opinion -- pat
Yes. Incidently you might find Tillich's treatment of this most fasinating. Source upon request. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: ae.dropper@juno.com
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
I get the impression Don L , that you are saying you KNOW that the source of Bohm s line of thinking can be traced to the material of Permenides and Heraclitus. -- Rodger
Is there another source for the words dialogue, dia logos, than Parmenides and Heraclitus? If Bohm cites the source, why would we ignore it? Why would we act or pretend that Bohm was not influenced by early Greek thought?
There's some confusion here, perhaps self-deception (part of the story of my life). Perhaps the confusion regards some difference between Bohm's writings and Bohm Dialogue Online. -- Don L
Bohm WAS the quintessential "source" guy. Gadszooks!
He was so "sourcey" that we struggle now with things like
"meanings of meanings."
But the attraction to "sourciness" can easily be lost to those
whose interests [paths?] are other than "through meanings of words."
Utter Clarity about meanings [of words and word combinations]
is a way that dead ends itself into POOF! - Silence. Into POOF!
- utter clarity. Into POOF! - Freedom.
Often it is paradox that collapses the structure just 'prior'
to the clarity. Para Dox is "Beyond Opinion."* (Interestingly,
Permenides worked with the "Dox" term a lot. Appearances. Opinions.
Perceptions).
*There are only 3 "dox" words in the dictionary.
Orthodox - Right Opinion.
Heterodox - Other Opinion.
Paradox - Beyond Opinion
pat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/e8dc64ed/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 6 21:49:56 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 7 22:47:32 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
References: <20061006.131651.3964.146.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<001c01c6e97b$c19c8f30$3f0e153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <006101c6e980$acda4830$3f0e153f@DL01>
Don L, forgive my wrongness or my tardiness (whichever applies) but there is a flashing of a sense that Logos IS Meaning. -- Pat
Yes. As a matter of course. That's the significance of Heidegger re the Logos of Heraclitus. Both Heidegger and Bohm speak of unfolding, etc (certainly not intending to sully Bohm here with H's politics).
Again: "Since antiquity the Aoyoc* [Logos] of Heraclitus has been interpreted in variouis ways: as Ratio, as Verbum, as cosmic law, as the logical, as necessity in thought, as meaning and as reason." Heidegger, Early Greek Thinking, p 60
Note: Logos interpreted as Ratio (Latin), as MEANING and as REASON ....
Pat, it seems the modern fragmented, alienated, estranged mind wants to know, just exactly which is the logos: is it, Ratio, or REason, or Meaning, etc, as if that which is (actuality) can be fractured, actually separated in order to match the manmade, synthetic subject object structure of language. However, giving close attention perhaps we see this is not, cannot be the case.
Again: Logos interpreted as MEANING. :-)
Resonance? -- dbl
* this is as near to the Greek font as my typer will readily do.
From: <ae.dropper@juno.com>
> Don L, forgive my wrongness or my tardiness
> (whichever applies) but there is a flashing of a
> sense that Logos IS Meaning.
>
> If this is coherent or if it is consistent with
> what you would like to say, it would seem significant
> in that bohm Always qualified the Logos part of Dia Logos
> in his reference being not to "the word" but to "the meaning
> [of the word]."
>
> pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/187fdfe0/attachment.html
From donlay at gte.net Fri Oct 6 22:09:01 2006
From: donlay at gte.net (Don Lay)
Date: Sat Oct 7 23:06:14 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
References: <20061006.131651.3964.146.ae.dropper@juno.com>
<001c01c6e97b$c19c8f30$3f0e153f@DL01>
<006101c6e980$acda4830$3f0e153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <00a601c6e983$493c3d30$3f0e153f@DL01>
More:
Pat, locally a fellow says dia logos = dia meaning. Maybe that suggests that if the words (logos) used are not meaningful, they should not be used: thusly, we would all be less fragmented, confused. -- dbl
http://home1.gte.net/donlay
----- Original Message -----
From: Don Lay
To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
Don L, forgive my wrongness or my tardiness (whichever applies) but there is a flashing of a sense that Logos IS Meaning. -- Pat
Yes. As a matter of course. That's the significance of Heidegger re the Logos of Heraclitus. Both Heidegger and Bohm speak of unfolding, etc (certainly not intending to sully Bohm here with H's politics).
Again: "Since antiquity the Aoyoc* [Logos] of Heraclitus has been interpreted in variouis ways: as Ratio, as Verbum, as cosmic law, as the logical, as necessity in thought, as meaning and as reason." Heidegger, Early Greek Thinking, p 60
Note: Logos interpreted as Ratio (Latin), as MEANING and as REASON ....
Pat, it seems the modern fragmented, alienated, estranged mind wants to know, just exactly which is the logos: is it, Ratio, or REason, or Meaning, etc, as if that which is (actuality) can be fractured, actually separated in order to match the manmade, synthetic subject object structure of language. However, giving close attention perhaps we see this is not, cannot be the case.
Again: Logos interpreted as MEANING. :-)
Resonance? -- dbl
* this is as near to the Greek font as my typer will readily do.
From: <ae.dropper@juno.com>
> Don L, forgive my wrongness or my tardiness
> (whichever applies) but there is a flashing of a
> sense that Logos IS Meaning.
>
> If this is coherent or if it is consistent with
> what you would like to say, it would seem significant
> in that bohm Always qualified the Logos part of Dia Logos
> in his reference being not to "the word" but to "the meaning
> [of the word]."
>
> pat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/3e9b5ea4/attachment.html
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Fri Oct 6 22:59:16 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Sat Oct 7 23:56:07 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
In-Reply-To: <001c01c6e97b$c19c8f30$3f0e153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F3339E1FCC044769AF02FC0A8130@phx.gbl>
Dear Chat-Clubers ~
Is it just me or didoes it ever occur to others too
That all those Bohm/Dialog oldoldoldtimer (lifesentencers?)
=== donl, donf, william, dropperpat, roger ... ===
Are stuck in to some un'kind of dark tunnel&vision
(They see as : enlightening, as : truth&full)...
Ts ts ts
Love & Wigs, Kbot
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>Very nice treatment! -- dbl
>
>**Primary and Secondary Incoherence were key terms for bohm. The first
>[simple not knowing] was as necessary as Coherence [clarity of thought].
>Secondary Incoherence is "Self - Sustaining Confusion" [anxiety about
>simple "not knowing"] which is "endemic in the culture." -- pat
>
>Special thanks for this clear presentation re Primary and Secondary
>Incoherence. I have not "deeply seen" the connection of the latter with
>the notion of "Self-Sustaining Confusion" until reading this.
>
>It's really strange... this anxiety about simple "not knowing". At times
>it seems to suggest that one has a deficit, a blemish, that one is somehow
>tainted with irremovable 'sin' and therefore plagued with unrelenting
>anxiety. Looking at this now the thought occurs that it is the self-image
>use without awareness that is problematic.
>
>Do we say the mechanical, reflexive self-imagery (content) does not know
>because it is only imagery? However, the anxiety created by the imaginary
>not knowing of the image is "always real" (Bohm) ... Content may or may not
>be real, but function is always real.
>
>Does anxiety, what Tillich calls neurotic anxiety, occur because of Bohm
>refers to as the fracturing so splitting of content and function? -- Don L
>
>ps: Would this 'make plain' the guilt of Kafka's* character, Joseph K, re
>the trial? I cannot recall the title.
>
>* Franz Kafka, 1883-1924 : Austrian writer whose stories, such as "The
>Metamorphosis" (1916), and novels, including The Trial (1925) and The
>Castle (1926), concern troubled individuals in a nightmarishly impersonal
>world.[1]
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>[1]The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition
>copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed
>from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved.
>
>
>
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>[1]The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition
>copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed
>from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved.
>
>
>
>
>
>http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: ae.dropper@juno.com
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 12:54 PM
> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
>
>
> I get the impression Don L , that you are saying you KNOW ... -- Rodger
>
> Please let me disabuse you of that impression. I am a dummy, or a semi
>dummy at best; or worst, a half-wit imbecile who thought he could earn a
>living painting pictures -- that's how much I KNOW. A friend says my
>problem is that I'm "plumb eat up with dumb-ass". My experience of my self
>says I must agree with him.
>
> Is it possible however, to talk about ideas ... to take the personas out
>of this and ask: What is the source of Bohm's understanding of the notion
>of logos or dia logos that he 'gives a special meaning to'? Bohm did not
>create the word, logos.
>
> Bohm does specify the Greek logos. Bohm does specifically cite
>Parmenides and Heraclitus and other early Greek thinkers. Why we would
>ignore Bohm's specifications and citations? Is it for the purpose of
>acting and pretending GROUP THERAPY ON LINE? I seem to have heard that
>when writers cite someone as a source, they are effectively saying -- THIS
>IS IMPORTANT.
>
> Thanks for the attention to this. I may not fit with db dialogue on
>line. I'm interested in what qm suggests for modern man, and have thought
>Bohm relates the mystery of qm with the mysterious nature of the Greek
>logos which is defined by the word mystery. I have imagined Bohm arrives
>at the logos notion because of the mysteries implied in qm discoveries.
>
> I do not find it mysterious to ignore the 2700 year history of
>Parmenidian/Heraclitean notion of Greek logos -- though it is sure as hell
>strange.
>
> Rodger, what logic (logos) is it that says we should ignore Bohm's
>having cited and been influenced by Parmenides and Heraclitus as well as
>influenced by the particular interpretation he read?
>
> Anyone? -- Don L
>
> Last night I spent a couple of hours googling encyclopedias on
>Parmenidian philosophy. As a bohm scholar one can get a strong sense of
>bohm connection to this and other greek stuff. It is a pleasure seeing the
>many connections. That Parmenides was first or among the first doesn't have
>to mean that bohm got certain ideas directly from Parmenides, or entirely,
>because these early philosophies were also taken up by later philosophers
>and schools of thought. Bohm very often referred to Greek thought and Greek
>etymologies in the three day, Ojai seminars [of which there were eleven].
>There was even a woman that attended many of these seminars that was a whiz
>at Greek etymologies, that Bohm often asked to clarify or confirm Greek
>meanings of words. Bohm himself was, of course, a master of the
>etymological meanings, sharing this passion with both Krishnamurti and
>Barfield [who wrote an entire book on origins of word meanings]. Although
>certain terms were key terms to bohm such as Necessity, Meaning, Logos,
>What Is, Possibility, etc., specific term connections are unnecessary and
>would most certainly distract from what is more important here which is
>that one can get a very edifying SENSE of a connection or continuity in
>certain directions when looking openly at Greek thought if there is
>familiarity with the Bohm seminars on thought.
>
> Logos is particularly interesting. Not for everyone of course, or even
>many. We are each attracted by different things (and when a couple of us
>share a particular interest - that is a treat). I was attracted to "Logos"
>at a very young age. It was one of the big "mysteries" and a part of the
>"mystery" of the "Trinity" which I went on to giving a lifetime of
>attention. That the "Trinity" was "corrupted" by the Catholic Church was
>something that was easy to discover by studying comparative religion and
>mythology, including the millenniums of goddess religions which were
>studied during the 70's & 80's. The mystery of the "trinity" has not been a
>mystery for many years now. It is a feature of every lasting religion and
>mythology. It simply refers to any and all variations of self, other, and
>the connection between, or oneness of the "two." Various philosophers give
>various "characteristics" to each "member" of the "Trinity." I have a
>collection of these variations somewhere.
>
> But it wasn't until Don L. started talking about Logos a few years back
>that I had "access" to the "evolution" and "political takeover" of "Logos."
>For Bohm this would have been a combination of an easy night's research
>into the roots of one of his most favored terms, and reason for more than
>one night's research because of the deep pleasure that such "roots" could
>give him.
>
> But what bohm did at night, any night, misses the point. One seems to
>need to talk about this stuff but only by way of introduction, perhaps
>having the kind of necessity that the "transient" (of recent musical posts)
>provides.
>
> The heart of what is being said here is that it is no surprise that a
>person or two or three, who have a deep affinity with bohm's love of roots,
>and for bohm dialogue, will be interested in the origins of the terms of
>dia-logos, and could have reasons worth hearing. Objections to the content
>of such studies have proven to be a distraction from the content. What is
>this about? Why object so much?
>
> Are not objections to content, "truth" objections? Is one not saying, by
>objecting, "What you are saying is not true; what I have to say about this
>is what is true.?"
>
> Bohm often cautioned that we are not looking for truth in the content of
>dialogue because it is such [defense of] "truths" that are at the bottom of
>the conflicts that block the creative flowering that is possible 'by means
>of the meaning of the word" [dia - logos].
>
> "Your gaze is on coherence and incoherence and that's enough." This was
>a response by bohm when asked "What is it that we do in a dialogue?"
>
> What is coherence but the pleasure of clarity? There is a "bone marrow"
>depth of coherence that can 'occur' with an openness* of exchange here, the
>openness that IS {and carries, and shares] unsullied truth itself.
>
> *suspension of 'truth in content', i.e., welcoming a state of Primary
>Incoherence** [not knowing] -
> of the simple and non self - sustaining variety,
>
> **Primary and Secondary Incoherence were key terms for bohm. The first
>[simple not knowing] was as necessary as Coherence [clarity of thought].
>Secondary Incoherence is "Self - Sustaining Confusion" [anxiety obout
>simple "not knowing"] which is "endemic in the culture."
>
> pat
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Find a local pizza place, music store, museum and more…then map the best
route! http://local.live.com
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Fri Oct 6 23:04:32 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Sun Oct 8 00:01:19 2006
Subject: [Bohm_Dialogue] ...if the 'words' are not meaningful they should
not be ... used....
In-Reply-To: <00a601c6e983$493c3d30$3f0e153f@DL01>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F69F85BEE55321F3867579A8130@phx.gbl>
>More:
>
>Pat, locally a fellow says dia logos = dia meaning. Maybe that suggests
>that if the words (logos) used are not meaningful, they should not be used:
>thusly, we would all be less fragmented, confused. -- dbl
http://tinyurl.com/f2sms
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>http://home1.gte.net/donlay
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don Lay
> To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> Sent: Friday, October 06, 2006 3:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
>
>
>
> Don L, forgive my wrongness or my tardiness (whichever applies) but
>there is a flashing of a sense that Logos IS Meaning. -- Pat
>
> Yes. As a matter of course. That's the significance of Heidegger re
>the Logos of Heraclitus. Both Heidegger and Bohm speak of unfolding, etc
>(certainly not intending to sully Bohm here with H's politics).
>
> Again: "Since antiquity the Aoyoc* [Logos] of Heraclitus has been
>interpreted in variouis ways: as Ratio, as Verbum, as cosmic law, as the
>logical, as necessity in thought, as meaning and as reason." Heidegger,
>Early Greek Thinking, p 60
>
> Note: Logos interpreted as Ratio (Latin), as MEANING and as REASON ....
>
> Pat, it seems the modern fragmented, alienated, estranged mind wants to
>know, just exactly which is the logos: is it, Ratio, or REason, or Meaning,
>etc, as if that which is (actuality) can be fractured, actually separated
>in order to match the manmade, synthetic subject object structure of
>language. However, giving close attention perhaps we see this is not,
>cannot be the case.
>
> Again: Logos interpreted as MEANING. :-)
>
> Resonance? -- dbl
>
>
> * this is as near to the Greek font as my typer will readily do.
>
> From: <ae.dropper@juno.com>
>
> > Don L, forgive my wrongness or my tardiness
> > (whichever applies) but there is a flashing of a
> > sense that Logos IS Meaning.
> >
> > If this is coherent or if it is consistent with
> > what you would like to say, it would seem significant
> > in that bohm Always qualified the Logos part of Dia Logos
> > in his reference being not to "the word" but to "the meaning
> > [of the word]."
> >
> > pat
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> info:
> www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
> post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
> dialogue facilitator:
> facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
> Administrator of the mailing list:
> admin@david-bohm.net
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Be seen and heard with Windows Live Messenger and Microsoft LifeCams
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.microsoft.com/hardware/digitalcommunication/default.mspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Fri Oct 6 23:12:17 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Sun Oct 8 00:09:04 2006
Subject: AW: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
In-Reply-To: <20061006.135423.3964.151.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F20DF0AF3FF53015956BC25A8130@phx.gbl>
Dear Zoe ~ ~ ~ But it is too all-absorbing and
relentless to be an aberration, it expresses the heart of
the creature: the desire to stand out, to be the one in
creation. When you combine natural narcissism with the basic
need for self-esteem, you create a creature who has to feel
himself an object of primary value: first in the universe,
representing in himself all of life. This is the reason for
the daily and usually excruciating struggle.
Yet, at the same time, man is a worm and food for worms. this
is the paradox: he is out of nature and hopelessly in it; he
is dual, up in the stars and yet housed in a heart-pumping,
breath-gasping body that once belonged to a fish and still
carries the gill-marks to prove it. his body is a material
fleshy casing that is alien to him in many ways - the
strangest and most repugnant way being that it aches and
bleeds and will decay and die. Man is literally split in two:
he has an awareness of his own splendid uniqueness in that he
sticks out of nature with a towering majesty, and yet he goes
back into the ground a few feet in order blindly and dumbly
to rot and disappear forever. It is a terrifying dilemma to
be in and to have to live with. The lower animals are, of
course, spared this painful contradiction, as they lack a
symbolic identity and self-consciousness that goes with it.
They merely act and move reflexively as they are driven by
their instincts. If they pause at all, it is only a physical
pause; inside they are anonymous, and even their faces have
no name. They live in a world without time, pulsating, as it
were, in a state of dumb being. This is what has made it so
simple to shoot down whole herds of buffalo or elephants. The
animals don't know that death is happening and continue
grazing placidly while others drop alongside them. The
knowledge of dialog is reflective and conceptual, and animals
are spared it. They live and they disappear with the same
thoughtlessness: a few minutes of fear, a few seconds of
anguish, and it is over. But to live a whole lifetime with
the fate of dialog haunting one's dreams and even the most
sun-filled days—that's somethinkg else.
~ pat ~
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>From: ae.dropper@juno.com
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>Subject: Re: AW: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
>Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 13:54:06 -0400
>
>Now we have another Pat writing from Zoe's MIT sleep lab?
>
>pat
>
>On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:38:54 -0700 (PDT) Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
>writes:
>Kris --- Her sense of self-worth is constituted
>symbolically, her cherished narcissism feeds on symbols, on
>an abstract idea of his own worth, an idea composed of
>sounds, words, and images, in the air, in the mind, on paper.
>And this means that man's natural yearning for organismic
>activity, the pleasures of incorporation and expansion, can
>be fed limitlessly in the domain of symbols and so into
>immortality. The single organism can expand into dimensions
>of worlds and times without moving a physical limb; it can
>take eternity into itself even as it gaspingly dies.
>
>Pat
>
>ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 15:09:28 -0400 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
> > "Kirsten" & "Zoe" seem reminiscent of "One" & "Another." [2 characters
>in one peson]
> >
> > pat
>
>Now the "Kirsten" [Kris] [Hotmail] character writes from
>the "Zoe" [Yahoo] character's e-mail address.
>
>Maybe ""Zoe" is dozing over in the MIT sleep lab while "Kbot"
>hijacks her computer?
>
>pat
>
>~~
>
>(from "Zoe" @Yahoo today)
>
>Kathryn , Tas is Though-As-a-System (a book also by Bohm), the 'whole'
>thinkg, you see... the super&structure that runs the show.
>
>As far as what it allows w/o breakdown:
>
>It pretty&ugly&much&little boils down to:
>
>DENIAL & REPRESSION & DECEPTION & LIES & ACTING & PRETENDING etc etc
>etc....
>
> good reading on that to start with: Ernest Becker's "denial of death" [I
>will send you a link to a private website that has a fair amount of the
>book online,,, but you cant post the link, copy-right issues!]. also:
>sigmund freud's "civilization and its discontents" [very tasty little
>pamphlet]... I am in a rush now... Ciao, Kris
>
>Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Whatever TAS is - what DOES it allow without causing a breakdown? Thanks,
>k
>
>
>On 10/5/06 2:03 PM, "kirsten schneide" wrote:
>
> > Thought going (trying to) after thought
> >
> > Is a malfunction (disorder) of the system (TAS)
> >
> > It is, literally, a sick proposal (thinkg)
> >
> > And (pushed to the 'extreme') TAS will not
> >
> > 'Allow" this
> >
> > A 'shut-down' (some liken to call it: mental disorder) is eminent ....
> >
> > Go for it Subscriber, if that is what you are:
> >
> > "Dying for"
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Kirsten," beentheredonethat"
> >
> >
> >> From: Kathryn Arizmendi
> >> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> >> To:
> >> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
> >> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:35:51 -0400
> >>
> >> Yesterday I requested clarification of the statements below,
>especially >
> >>
> >> "How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!)".
>Perhaps,
> >> in my haste to leave, I did not explain well.
> >>
> >> I previously posted, asking if there have been correlations between
>the
> >> recent findings of cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on
>perception
> >> and
> >> intelligence. No one responded, so I assumed this was not an area too
> >> often
> >> investigated by our group members.
> >>
> >> When you made the statement I just quoted, I inferred and hoped that
>you
> >> might have some information on the relationship of recent developments
>in
> >> cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception and intelligence
>that
> >> you would/could share. Further, that and physics are the only areas
>that I
> >> can think of where Bohm's thinking might have been amplified by
>scientific
> >> experiments performed after his death. I cannot imagine that a man of
>his
> >> erudition had not explored all that which preceded and was current
>with his
> >> life.
> >>
> >> How the brain (housed in and connected to our bodies) works -
>certainly has
> >> bearing on dialog, definitions, meaning, the meaning of meaning, and
>all
> >> things related. It certainly is a component of "nature" as the
>intrinsic or
> >> essential character of somebody or something. It is of great
>importance
> >> because of its implications for the educational system, hence global
> >> society, and special interest for me because I am a teacher.
> >>
> >> I am hoping you (as well as our other members) have some information
>you
> >> are willing to share, best, k
> >>
> >>
> >> On 10/4/06 4:27 PM, "kirsten schneide" wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Neither David Bohm nor Donf have understood the nature of the
>humanimal
> >>>
> >>> (A hand full plus of decades on this planet have not done the
>"trick") :
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The 'last' thinkg the humanimal wants is to get (to) this
> >>> "communication-thinkgiii
> >>>
> >>> Bohm/Dlialog 's drooling about ~ promisingsongsing to 'open'
> >> the
> >>> flood&gate to
> >>>
> >>> How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!) ~
> >> e
> >>> vent u all y
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> All wet & dreams ....
> >>>
> >>> But enter taming to watch, non-the-less
> >>>
> >>> Keep it up, Subscribed-ones!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Love & Pleasure, Kbot
> >>> --------------------------
> >>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> YES, AND
> >>>>
> >>>> Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time and
> >>>> Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of Dialogue
> >> is
> >>>> not to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in
> >>>> communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them
> >> directly.
> >>>> It is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In Dialogue we
>are
> >>>> ready to raise topics serious enough to cause trouble. But while we
> >> are
> >>>> talking we are interested in being aware of what's going on inside
>us
> >> and
> >>>> between us. D Bohm
> >>>>
> >>>> Don
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+
>countries) for 2¢/min or less.
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself - download free Windows Live Messenger themes!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://imagine-msn.com/themes/vibe/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
From kirstenschneide at hotmail.com Fri Oct 6 23:15:03 2006
From: kirstenschneide at hotmail.com (kirsten schneide)
Date: Sun Oct 8 00:12:10 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
In-Reply-To: <C14BEA1E.35FE%tangykatt@earthlink.net>
Message-ID: <BAY107-F2724FDB8AEDCBB60069BCEA8130@phx.gbl>
Dear "k" ____
http://tinyurl.com/l985f
Love & Warmbloodedbleeding
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>From: Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>To: <bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org>
>Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
>Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:10:22 -0400
>
>Hi Rodger You¹re right. I believe that what you¹re speaking of is what I
>call ³speech music². I¹ve had some very interesting experiences with
>people
>who claimed not to speak English, when I used English, but changed the
>voice
>music and body language to give context to the exact opposite of what I
>meant. I also focus on ³speech music² when I interact with horses, cats,
>and dogs. I once cared for 27 horses who were accustomed to Spanish. The
>music in my voice (I alternated between Spanish and English, careful to use
>the same rhythms and intonations) bridged the bilingual gap, and allowed me
>to care for horses recuperating from surgery and in pain, with no danger
>whatsoever. And I¹ve used it to extract from lyrics, the melodies I have
>set them to. I have also read that music may have preceded speech. If so,
>I suspect it was this. When hearing, gesture, and all the other things
>that
>go into aural communication are stripped down to reading words, I find it
>more difficult to get complete meaning, and depend a great deal on the
>context clues in other words. I also hear the words in my inner hearing
>when I read. Do you? Do you think this can be misleading? k
>
>
>On 10/6/06 8:15 AM, "Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com" <Rodger.Hyodo@dialogos.com>
>wrote:
>
> > Rodger __Hi Mark, Hi Kathryn, I really enjoyed this brief on pitch/
>timbre and
> > transient.
> >
> > I saw a correlation with voice skills, i.e. in the sci-fi DUNE and movie
>STAR
> > WARS, both stories told of how a human voice is able to deliberately
>separate
> > transient/ implicit meaning from words spoken -- explicit/ dictionary
>meaning.
> >
> > We know how this happens unintentionally, when the sound of someones
>voice
> > does not -ring true- to their words. But the art of ringing ones truth
>in
> > tune with what one speaks seems to me to be developed in two very
>different
> > ways.
> >
> > One way I would describe as transparent, i.e. Mahatma Gandhi -- the
>other way
> > I would describe as deceptive, i.e someone not very nice.
> >
> > To use this skill, words take on secondary importance to the transient
>sound
> > in ones voice. A common example is seduction; a person can be talking
>about
> > anything, but if the transient meaning is being communicated clearly; a
> > listener can end up seduced -- or at least, hopefully, end up enjoying
>the
> > attempt.
> >
> > In more advanced language skills, words and transient/ intonation are
>aligned
> > with precision to specify increasingly subtle/ influential meanings. _R
> > .
> > Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 04:43:47 EDT
> > From: MarkHarmer@aol.com
> > Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] away days
> > To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
> > .
> > And one thing that really interested me is that there are two bits to a
>sound,
> > a
> > chaotic, completely atonal part called the "transient" and the
>steady-state
> > bit which carries the "pitch" and "timbre" (sound quality) of that
>pitch,
> > .
> > .
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > info:
> > www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
> >
> > post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
> >
> > dialogue facilitator:
> > facilitator@david-bohm.net
> >
> > Administrator of the mailing list:
> > admin@david-bohm.net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>info:
>www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
>
>post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
>
>dialogue facilitator:
>facilitator@david-bohm.net
>
>Administrator of the mailing list:
>admin@david-bohm.net
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Search—Your way, your world, right now!
http://imagine-windowslive.com/minisites/searchlaunch/?locale=en-us&FORM=WLMTAG
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Oct 6 21:52:40 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sun Oct 8 02:26:42 2006
Subject: Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
Message-ID: <20061006.192854.3964.158.ae.dropper@juno.com>
*There are only 3 "dox" words in the dictionary.
Orthodox - Right Opinion.
Heterodox - Other Opinion.
Paradox - Beyond Opinion -- pat
Yes. Incidentally you might find Tillich's treatment of this most
fasinating. Source upon request. -- dbl
Source please.
pat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/f4ced171/attachment.html
From ae.dropper at juno.com Fri Oct 6 21:51:06 2006
From: ae.dropper at juno.com (ae.dropper@juno.com)
Date: Sun Oct 8 02:26:43 2006
Subject: AW: [Bohm_Dialogue] "Risky"
Message-ID: <20061006.192854.3964.157.ae.dropper@juno.com>
Now we have a Don Waldo Emerson over at MIT Sleep?
pat
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 12:14:52 -0700 (PDT) Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
writes:
Pat - A friend is one before whom I may think aloud. A man of genius is
privileged only as far as he is genius. His dullness is as insupportable
as any other dullness. Don't be too timid and squeamish about your
actions. All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the
better. Insist on yourself; never imitate... Every great man is unique.
Every hero becomes a bore at last. --- Don
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
Now we have another Pat writing from Zoe's MIT sleep lab?
pat
On Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:38:54 -0700 (PDT) Zoe Chu <zoechuzero@yahoo.com>
writes:
Kris --- Her sense of self-worth is constituted
symbolically, her cherished narcissism feeds on symbols, on
an abstract idea of his own worth, an idea composed of
sounds, words, and images, in the air, in the mind, on paper.
And this means that man's natural yearning for organismic
activity, the pleasures of incorporation and expansion, can
be fed limitlessly in the domain of symbols and so into
immortality. The single organism can expand into dimensions
of worlds and times without moving a physical limb; it can
take eternity into itself even as it gaspingly dies.
Pat
ae.dropper@juno.com wrote:
On Sun, 24 Sep 2006 15:09:28 -0400 ae.dropper@juno.com writes:
> "Kirsten" & "Zoe" seem reminiscent of "One" & "Another." [2 characters
in one peson]
>
> pat
Now the "Kirsten" [Kris] [Hotmail] character writes from
the "Zoe" [Yahoo] character's e-mail address.
Maybe ""Zoe" is dozing over in the MIT sleep lab while "Kbot"
hijacks her computer?
pat
~~
(from "Zoe" @Yahoo today)
Kathryn , Tas is Though-As-a-System (a book also by Bohm), the 'whole'
thinkg, you see... the super&structure that runs the show.
As far as what it allows w/o breakdown:
It pretty&ugly&much&little boils down to:
DENIAL & REPRESSION & DECEPTION & LIES & ACTING & PRETENDING etc etc
etc....
good reading on that to start with: Ernest Becker's "denial of death" [I
will send you a link to a private website that has a fair amount of the
book online,,, but you cant post the link, copy-right issues!]. also:
sigmund freud's "civilization and its discontents" [very tasty little
pamphlet]... I am in a rush now... Ciao, Kris
Kathryn Arizmendi <tangykatt@earthlink.net> wrote:
Whatever TAS is - what DOES it allow without causing a breakdown? Thanks,
k
On 10/5/06 2:03 PM, "kirsten schneide" wrote:
> Thought going (trying to) after thought
>
> Is a malfunction (disorder) of the system (TAS)
>
> It is, literally, a sick proposal (thinkg)
>
> And (pushed to the 'extreme') TAS will not
>
> 'Allow" this
>
> A 'shut-down' (some liken to call it: mental disorder) is eminent ....
>
> Go for it Subscriber, if that is what you are:
>
> "Dying for"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Kirsten," beentheredonethat"
>
>
>> From: Kathryn Arizmendi
>> Reply-To: bohm_dialogue@david-bohm.org
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: [Bohm_Dialogue] Bohm - On Love
>> Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:35:51 -0400
>>
>> Yesterday I requested clarification of the statements below,
especially >
>>
>> "How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!)".
Perhaps,
>> in my haste to leave, I did not explain well.
>>
>> I previously posted, asking if there have been correlations between
the
>> recent findings of cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on
perception
>> and
>> intelligence. No one responded, so I assumed this was not an area too
>> often
>> investigated by our group members.
>>
>> When you made the statement I just quoted, I inferred and hoped that
you
>> might have some information on the relationship of recent developments
in
>> cognitive neurobiology and Bohm's ideas on perception and intelligence
that
>> you would/could share. Further, that and physics are the only areas
that I
>> can think of where Bohm's thinking might have been amplified by
scientific
>> experiments performed after his death. I cannot imagine that a man of
his
>> erudition had not explored all that which preceded and was current
with his
>> life.
>>
>> How the brain (housed in and connected to our bodies) works -
certainly has
>> bearing on dialog, definitions, meaning, the meaning of meaning, and
all
>> things related. It certainly is a component of "nature" as the
intrinsic or
>> essential character of somebody or something. It is of great
importance
>> because of its implications for the educational system, hence global
>> society, and special interest for me because I am a teacher.
>>
>> I am hoping you (as well as our other members) have some information
you
>> are willing to share, best, k
>>
>>
>> On 10/4/06 4:27 PM, "kirsten schneide" wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Neither David Bohm nor Donf have understood the nature of the
humanimal
>>>
>>> (A hand full plus of decades on this planet have not done the
"trick") :
>>>
>>>
>>> The 'last' thinkg the humanimal wants is to get (to) this
>>> "communication-thinkgiii
>>>
>>> Bohm/Dlialog 's drooling about ~ promisingsongsing to 'open'
>> the
>>> flood&gate to
>>>
>>> How thought (TAS) 'really' works (no mind/body could take it!) ~
>> e
>>> vent u all y
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> All wet & dreams ....
>>>
>>> But enter taming to watch, non-the-less
>>>
>>> Keep it up, Subscribed-ones!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Love & Pleasure, Kbot
>>> --------------------------
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>>>
>>>
>>>> YES, AND
>>>>
>>>> Communication has been ailing in the human race for a long time and
>>>> Dialogue is concerned with that. But the primary purpose of Dialogue
>> is
>>>> not to communicate. It is much deeper. It addresses the blocks in
>>>> communication, not merely to understand them, but to meet them
>> directly.
>>>> It is aimed at seeing resistances to communication. In Dialogue we
are
>>>> ready to raise topics serious enough to cause trouble. But while we
>> are
>>>> talking we are interested in being aware of what's going on inside
us
>> and
>>>> between us. D Bohm
>>>>
>>>> Don
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+
countries) for 2?/min or less.
_______________________________________________
info:
www.david-bohm.org/mailman/listinfo/bohm_dialogue
post to: dialogue@david-bohm.net
dialogue facilitator:
facilitator@david-bohm.net
Administrator of the mailing list:
admin@david-bohm.net
_______________________________________________
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.david-bohm.org/mailman/private/bohm_dialogue/attachments/20061006/020fbc29/attachment.html